jfevTi^r-^ 


/A  22,23 


3Fntm  tl|?  SItbrarg  of 

l^quf  atl|pi  bg  Ijftm  to 

tt|i?  Htbrarg  af 

Primrrton  Slt^nlogtral  ^^mtttar^ 


BV  600  .P4 

Peck,  Thomas  E.  1822-1893. 

Notes  on  ecclesiology 


ECCLESIOLOGY. 


NOTES 


ON 


ECCLESIOLOGY. 


/ 


BY 


T.  E.  PECK,  D.  D.,  LL.  D., 

Professor  in  Union  Theological  Seminary. 


RICHMOND,    VA. 

Presbyterian  Committee  of  Publication. 

1892. 


COPXEIGHT 
BY 

James  K.  Hazek,  Secretaky, 
1892. 


Pkinted  by 
Whitxet  &  Shepperson, 

RiCHMOMD,  VA. 


PREFATORY  NOTE. 


The  most  of  these  "Notes"  were  printed  in  1880  by 
the  students  of  Union  Theological  Seminary  in  Vir- 
ginia, exclusively  for  their  own  use.  They  are  now 
published  for  the  first  time.  About  fifty  pages  have 
been  added,  the  additional  matter  consisting  of  the 
expansion  of  the  hints  on  "Apostolical  Succession" 
and  of  a  short  chapter  on  "The  Deacon's  Ofiice." 

THE  AUTHOE. 


CONTENTS. 

I.  Introductory,    ^    _    .    .    -    -  7 

II.     Terms  and  Denominations,       -         -         -         -  10 

III.     Definitions  and  Descriptions,          -         -         -  13 

rV.     Distinction  of  Church  External  and  Internal,  16 

V.     General  Description  of  the  Church  Visible,  -  20 

VI.     Proofs  of  the  Existence  of  a  Church  Visible,  -  22 

VII.     First  Organization  of  the  Church  Visible,      -  28 

VIII.     Method  of  Perpetuating  the  Church  Visible,  -  34 

IX.     The  Initiating  Seal,        -----  38 

X.     Infant  Members,    ------  42 

XI.     The  Notes  or  Marks  op  a  True  Church,          -  47 

The  Pretended  Notes  of  Rome,      -        -         -  51 

Apostolical  Succession,  -----  51 

Is  the  Church  of  Rome  a  True   Church  of 

Christ?        ------  103 

XII.     The  Nature  and  Extent  of  Church  Power,      -  106 


6  Contents. 

XIII.  The  Power  Ecclesiastical  Contrasted  with 

THE   Power   Civil.     Relation  of   the 

Church  to  the  State,  -         -         -  119 

XIV.  Other  Theories  of  Church  and  State,  -         -  156 
XV.     Subject  of  Church  Power. — Materia  in  qua,  162 

XVI.     Officers  of  the  Church,        -         -         -         -  171 

XVII.     Presbyteries — Congregational — "Sessions,"-  178 

XVIII.     Presbyteries — Classical,  Synodical,  General,  185 

XIX.     The  Deacon's  Office,    -----  197 


ECCLESIOLOGY. 


INTRODUCTORY. 


The  scientific  theologians  of  Germany  have  arranged 
the  cycle  of  sacred  knowledge  under  five  leading  cate- 
gories, viz. :  1,  "  Theology^'  the  science  of  God.  2,  A:n- 
throjwJogy,  the  science  of  man  in  relation  to  God.  3, 
Soteriology,  the  science  of  salvation.  4,  .Ecdesiology, 
the  science  of  the  church.  5,  Eschatology,  or  the 
science  of  "the  last  things."  The  term  Theology,  in 
this  classification,  you  will  notice,  is  used  in  a  narrow 
sense  for  a  particular  branch  of  theology,  commonly 
so-called ;  and  is  concerned  with  discussions  touching 
the  Being  and  Personality  of  God,  and  embraces,  as  a 
sub-division,  "  Christology^'  or  the  doctrine  of  the 
Person  of  Christ,  the  God-man.  It  includes  also  the 
doctrine  concerning  the  creation  and  government  of 
the  world,  and  the  doctrine  of  angels  and  dremons. 
(See  Hagenbach's  History  of  Doctrines ;  Robinson  on 
the  Church.)  ^^  Aiithropology !'  or  the  science  of  man, 
treats  of  such  questions  as  the  origin  of  the  soul,  liberty 
and  immortality,  the  fall,  sin,  tfec.  Soteriology,  or  the 
science  of  salvation,  embraces,  chiefly,  the  doctrines  of 
redemption  and  atonement,  justification,  and,  in 
short,  the  priestly  work  of  Christ  in  all  its  relations  to 
the  curse  of  the  law_,  and  to  human  guilt  and  condem- 
nation, and  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  {TIagenhach 
'tit  sup.  cit.) 

Now,  such  a  classification  implies  in  the  history  of 
doctrine,  these  three  things:  1,  That  Ecelesiology  i^  a 
branch  of    theology    in  the  wide   sense.     2,   That  it 


8  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

comes  after  the  first  three,  in  a  natural  or  logical 
method.  3,  That  it  comes  after  the  first  three  in  an 
historical  order. 

(1),  Ecclesiology  belongs  to  theology.  The  doc- 
trine of  the  church  belongs  to  the  things  which  have 
been  revealed  of  God,  and  are,  therefore,  objects  of 
faith.  Accordingly,  we  find  this  doctrine  in  the  very 
earliest  sjanbol  of  the  Christian  church,  the  "  Apostle's 
Creed,"  standing  in  the  same  relation  to  the  "credo" 
as  the  other  articles,  and  in  the  same  order,  with  re- 
spect to  the  doctrines  concerning  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  w^hich  we  find  in  the  classification 
we  are  considering.  So  also,  in  nearly  all  the  larger 
creeds  and  confessions  of  a  later  date.  The  25th 
chapter  of  onr  own  ".Confession  of  Faith,"  is  entitled 
"Of  the  Church." 

(2),  The  doctrine  of  the  church,  in  a  rational  or  lo- 
gical order,  falls  to  be  considered  after  theology,  an- 
thropology, and  soteriology,  for  the  very  obvious 
reason  that  the  church  is  the  great  and  last  result  con- 
templated by  the  revelation  concerning  God,  man,  and 
salvation.  It  is  the  highest  end,  next  to  the  glory  of 
God,  of  all  the  counsels  and  all  the  works  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  Chosen  by  the  Father, 
redeemed  by  the  Son,  sanctified  by  the  Spirit,  and 
finally  presented  a  "glorious  church,"  without  spot  or 
wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing,  the  Bride,  the  Laml)'s 
wife,  shall  be  hailed  by  principalities  and  powers  in 
heavenly  places,  as  the  highest  and  noblest  display  of 
the  manifold  wisdom  of  God  (Eph.  iii.  9,  10) ;  as  far 
transcending  in  glory  the  old  creation,  over  which  the 
morning-stars  sang  together  and  all  the  sons  of  God 
shouted  for  joy,  as  the  second  Ac\am,  who  is  a  quick- 
ening Spirit,  transcends  in  glory  the  first  Adam,  who 
was  but  a  living  soul. 

Meanwhile,  during  this  dispensation  of  testimony 
and  of  trial,  it  is  the  office  of  the  church,  as  the  pillar 
and  buttress  of  the  truth,  to  bear  witness  of  the  great 


Intkoductoey.  *  9 

truths  which  are  comprehended  under  the  terms  The- 
ology, Anthropology,  and  Soteriology.  She  is  not 
only  the  object  of  the  working  of  that  Triune  God  of 
whom  theology  treats,  and  the  subject  of  that  sin  and 
salvation  of  which  anthropologj^  and  soteriology  treat, 
but  to  her  have  been  committed  the  lively  oracles 
which  alone  determine  the  faith  of  mankind  upon  all 
these  classes  of  truths,  and  through  her  are  these 
truths  to  be  published  to  the  race.  The  contents  of 
the  message  are  to  be  pondered  first,  then  the  nature 
of  the  messenger.     This  is  the  rational  order. 

(3),  It  is  also  the  order  of  history.  It  is  worthy  of 
note  that  "the  history  of  the  church  since  the  apostles 
seems  to  have  been  a  development  in  succession  of 
these  four  in  their  order.  "Theology  "  had  its  full  de- 
velopment during  the  controversies  concerning  the 
nature  of  the  Godhead,  which  closed. with  the  labors  of 
Athanasius;  "Anthropology,"  during  the  Pelagian  con- 
troversy, closing  with  the  labors  of  Augustine.  Next,' 
after  a  thousand  years  of  repose  and  silence  in  the 
church,  was  developed  Soteriology,  through  the  labors 
of  Luther  and  Calvin,  proclaiming  salvation  as  by  grace 
through  faith ;  leaving  the  fourth  (Ecclesiology)  yet  to  ■ 
be  developed."  {I^ohinson  on  the  Church,  pp.  27,  28.) 
This  is  certainly  striking,  though  absolute  accuracy 
would,  perhaps,  require  the  statement  to  be  modified 
and  limited. 

In  harmony  with  this  idea,  that  the  development  of 
Ecclesiology  may  be  reserved  for  the  last,  perhaps  our 
own  times,  is  the  fact  that  many  of  the  most  obtrusive 
tendencies  of  speculation,  socialistic,  political,  philo- 
sophical, in  the  nineteenth  centuryjappear  in  discus- 
sions about  the  principle  oi  felloioship,  the  j^i'iuciple 
upon  which  the  church  is  constituted.  I  may  instance 
"  Communism,"  "  St.  Simonianism,"  &c.,  in  social  23hil- 
osophy;  the  principles  of  "sodality"  and  "solidarity," 
in  political  philosophy ;  and  the  principle  of  "  catholi- 
city "  used  as  the  criterion  of  certitude  in  philosophy 


10  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

properly  so-called.  (See  Trenclis  Ilulsean  Zec^.,  VIII., 
p.  125;  MoJ^eWs  Philosophy  of  Religion;  Morell  on 
Phil.  Tendencies  of  the  Age,  L.  4tli.)  Indeed,  it  is  not 
unlikely  that  two  of  the  three  frog-like,  nnclean  spirits 
which  John  tells  ns  (Rev.  xvi.  13)  proceed  out  of  the 
mouths  of  the  dragon,  the  beast,  and  the  false  prophet, 
"infidelity"  and  "formalism,"  may  form  a  coalition 
upon  the  principle  of  catholicity  {quod  semper,  quod 
vh'njue,  quod  ah  oinnihus)  for  one  final,  desperate  assault 
upon  the  church  of  God,  (see  Presh.  Critic,  Yol.  I., 
p.  291-'2),  envied,  like  Abel  of  old,  for  her  possession 
of  the  absolute  truth,  certitude  and  assurance. 

However  this  may  be,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  question  of  the  church  is,  in  our  day  and  in  our 
own  branch  of  the  church,  one  of  the  most  conspicu- 
ous ;  and  there  is  little  doubt  that  assertions  are  made 
in  regard  to  the  nature  and  functions  of  the  church,  in 
some  of  these  discussions,  which,  if  accepted  and  be- 
lieved, must  be  fatal  to  the  soul. 

These  facts  constitute  an  ample  vindication  of  the 
importance  of  the  studies  upon  which  we  are  about  to 
enter  as  well  as  of  the  appropriateness  of  the  place  as- 
signed to  them  in  the  Seminary  Curriculum. 

II. 

Terms  and  Denominations. 

"  Church."  This  word,  and  German  lirche,  Saxon 
circe,  and  Scotch  hlrh,  are  derived,  probably,  from  the 
Greek  yjj(naxo^,  or  to  '/j)(na'Aov,  that  which  belongeth  to 
the  Lord.  "As  a  house  of  God  is  called  a  Basilica, 
i.  e.,  regia  a  Pege,  so  also  it  is  named  Kyrica,  i.  e., 
Porniniccc  a  Domino  (  xo^no'-:) "  says  an  old  author 
(quoted  in  Gieselers  O.  H.,  §  I.)  It  appears  from  Ul- 
filas  that,  in  general,  the  Greek  names  of  Christian  ' 
things  were  adopted  among  the  Goths.  The  Greek 
origin  of  the  word  is  confirmed  also  by  its  being  found 
not  only  in  all  the  German  dialects,  (Swedish  kyrka, 


Terms  and  Denominations.  11 

Danish  kirke^  etc.,)  but  also  in  those  of  the  Sclavonian 
nations  who  were  converted  by  the  Greeks  (PoHsh 
cerkieiv,  Kussian  herkoiv,  Bohemian  cyy'kevj.)  (See  note 
to  the  section  in  Gieseler  td  supra.) 

"  Synagogue."  This  word  is  used  in  the  LXX.  often, 
as  well  as  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  put  for  any 
kind  of  an  assembly,  whether  sacred  or  civil  (Exod.  xii. 
3,  19 ;  Num.  xvi.  2),  nay,  even  in  a  bad  sense,  for  a  pro- 
fane and  impious  assembly  (Psa.  xxvi.  5) ;  sometimes 
for  the  place  of  meeting  (Luke  vii.  5),  in  which  the 
Jews  were  accustomed  to  assemble  to  hear  the  law, 
offer  prayers  and  perform  other  offices  of  devotion  be- 
side those  which  were  to  be  performed  in  the  temple. 
Thence  the  so  frequent  mention  of  synagogues  in  the 
New  Testament,  the  origin  of  which,  according  to  some, 
was  in  the  time  of  Moses  (Acts  xv.  21) ;  according  to 
others  in  the  time  of  the  captivity,  when  they  were  de- 
prived of  the  temple  services.  Hence,  the  "  synagogue  " 
has  come  to  denote  the  Jewish  church,  in  like  manner 
as  "the  church"  has  been  applied  to  the  Christian 
church. 

"Ecclesia"  is  a  Gentile,  as  synagogue  is  a  Jewish, 
denomination  {Turret/ n,  Vol.  III.,  pp.  7,  8).  Hence,  in 
the  Epistle  of  James  (ii.  2),  which  is  addressed  to  Jew- 
ish Christians,  the  assembly  of  worshippers  is  called 
the  synagogue;  but  the  churches  under  the  gospel 
being  composed  for  the  most  part  of  Gentile  converts, 
the  term  ecclesia  is  most  commonly  used  (Turretin  nt 
supra —  Witsius^Exercit.  Sac.  in  Synibolum,  xxiv.  p.  451, 
Amstelod,    1697). 

The  Greek  EAxXr^aca  answers  precisely  to  the  kahal 
and  gheda  and  moid  of  the  Old  Testament,  all  these 
terms  signifying  an  assendjly,  especially  one  convened 
by  invitation  or  appointment.  (Ilasons  Essays  on  the 
Okurch,  No.  1,  Works,  Yol.  lY.  p.  3).  ''  That  this 
is  their  generic  sense,"  says  Dr.  Mason,  "no  scholar 
will  deny;  nor  that  their  particular  applications  are 
ultimately  resolvable   into   it.      Hence  it   is  evident, 


12  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

from  the  terms  tliemselyes,  nothing  can  be  conckided 
as  to  the  nature  or  extent  of  the  assembl}^  which  they 
denote.  WhencA^er  either  of  the  two  former  occurs  in 
the  Old  Testament,  or  the  other  in  the  new,  you  are 
sure  of  an  assemhly,  but  of  nothing  more.  What  that 
assembly  is,  and  whom  it  comprehencTs,  you  must  learn 
from  the  connection  of  the  term  and  the  subject  of  the 
writer."     A  few  instances  will  exemplify  the  remark  : 

In  the  Old  Testament,  halial^'  is  applied  :  To  the 
whole  mass  of  the  j)eople  (Exod.  xii.  6) ;  to  a  portion 
of  the  people,  who  came  upon  Hezekiah's  invitation  to 
keep  the  passover  (2  Chron.  xxx.  24)  ;  to  the  army 
of  Pharaoh  (Ezek.  xvii.  17)  ;  to  an  indefinite  mvltitude 
(Gen.  xxviii.  3) ;  to  the  society  of  Simeon  and  Levi 
(Gen.  xlix.  6)  So  also  ghecla  is  applied  :  to  the  whole 
nation  of  Israel  (Exod.  xvi.  22)  ;  to  the  particular 
company  of  Korah,  Dathan  and  Abiram  (Num.  xvi. 
16) ;  to  the  assembly  of  the  just,  as  opposed  to  the 
loicJcecl  (Psa.  i.  5) ;  to  the  juclicato7'y,  before  whom 
crimes  were  tried  (Num.  xxxv.  12,  24,  comp.  with 
Deut.  xix.  12,  17,  18).  In  like  manner  exxXr^aca,  in  the 
New  Testament,  is  applied :  To  the  ivhole  hody  of  the  re- 
deemed (Eph.  V.  24,  27) ;  to  the  whole  hody  of  professing 
Christians,  whether  more  or  less  extensive,  as  in  the 
apostolic  salutations  and  inscriptions  of  the  Ej^istles; 
to  a  small  association  of  Christians  meeting  together 
in  a  private  house  (Col.  iv.  15,  Phil.  i.  2)  ;  to  a  civil 
assembly  laiofully  convened  (Acts  xix.  39) ;  to  a  body 
of  persons  irregidarly  convened  (Acts  xix.  32).  In  ap- 
plication to  the  church,  note  the  following  meanings : 
1st,  The  church  invisible.  2d,  The  church  visible,  in  the 
sense  of  a  single  congregation  worshipping  statedly  in 

*It  is  only  this  word  which  the  LXX.  render  by  t/./.h^aia  ;  though 
they  sometimes  use  (rovaYil'yri  to  represent  it.  In  Psa.  xxvi.  12  ;  Ixviii. 
27,  a  cognate  word  in  the  plural  is  rendered  by  the  plural  of  ecdesia. 
The  three  Hebrew  words  seem  to  be  used  indiscriminately  in  Num.  x. 
1-7,  still  it  may  be  a  question  whether  the  assembly  of  vs.  7  is  the  same 
as  that  of  vs.  3,  or  rather  with  the  select  assembly  of  chiefs  in  vs.  4. 


Definitions  and  Descriptions.  13 

one  place.  3rd,  Separate  congregations  united  under 
one  government,  ( Church  of  Jerusalem).  4th,  The 
church  visible,  vaguely  and  indefinitely  so  called — the 
whole  body  of  professing  Christians,  without  reference 
to  external  organic  unity  (Confession  of  Faith,  Chap. 
XXV.  Art.  I. ;  compare  "Jews").  5tli.  The  church  re- 
presentative, the  church  court. 

"  IlavYjY'jocz,''  (Heb.  xii.  23)  which  has  a  significa- 
tion somewhat  different  from  the  ecdeda.  AVhen  the 
people  among  the  Greeks  were  convoked  for  the  pur- 
pose of  deliberating  and  determining  concerning  matters 
pertaining  to  the  republic,  the  assembly,  as  we  have 
already  noted,  was  called  ecdeshu  But  when,  as  in 
the  Panatheufea,  they  were  invited  to  some  festive 
spectacle,  then  the  assembly  was  called  llawj'j(>cc,  and 
an  oration  delivered  on  such  an  occasion  was  called 
navfffO(ir/,oz,  loyo:;.  An  assembly  of  the  faithful,  there- 
fore, convened  to  act  upon  things  pertaining  to  the 
kingdom  of  God,  i.  e.,  spiritual  and  heavenly  things, 
may  be  called  ecclesia,  but  inasmuch  as  they  are  in- 
vited and  admitted  to  the  greatest  spectacle  in  the  uni- 
verse, the  glory  of  God  shining  in  the  face  of  Jesus 
Christ,  the  assembly  may  be  called  T.avf^y')(n::.  (See 
WiUius  nt  Sup.) 

III. 

Definitions  and  Descriptions. 

The  church  may  be  defined,  "  a  society  of  faithful  or 
believing  men,  called  by  God,  through  the  word,  out 
of  the  whole  human  race,  to  the  communion  of  the 
covenant  of  grace  in  Christ."  (  Witmis  uf  i<up.,  24, 
sec.  6.)  The  difterent  members  of  this  definition  must 
be  explained  in  their  order : 

1st.  It  is  a  society.  This  implies  not  only  that  the 
individuals  composing  it  are  many  (1  Cor.  x.  17) ;  but 
as  we  are  taught  in  this  text,  and  in  1  Cor.  xii.  14,  many 
joined  together  organically,  so  as  to  make  one  hody. 


14  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

Society  implies  a  community  of  nature  and  of  ends. 
Instance  in  the  family  and  in  the  state,  which,  like  the 
church,  have  been  instituted  by  God.  The  same  is 
true,  to  a  certain  extent,  even  of  voluntary  associations. 
The  members  are  "fellows,"  at  least  with  respect  to 
the  ends  for  which  the  association  is  instituted.  This 
idea  of  community  of  nature,  feeling,  interests,  etc.,  is 
expressed  emphatically  in  the  common  illustration 
drawn  from  the  human  body.  (See  1  Cor  xii. ;  Eph. 
iv.  4,  &c.)  If  one  member  suffers  or  rejoices,  tlie  other 
members  suffer  or  rejoice  with  it.  The  functions  dis- 
charged by  one  memlDer  are  discharged  for  the  good  of 
all.  Each  is  interested  in  all  and  all  in  each.  The 
notion  of  a  body,  however,  implies  also  (see  Eph.  iv.  16) 
organization,  a  constitution  of  the  parts  or  members  in 
certain  relations  to  each  other  and  to  the  whole,  and 
especially  a  common  relation  or  union  to  a  head,  a 
directing  power  which  shall  give  unity  to  the  operations 
of  all  the  parts.  Of  the  body,  the  church,  Christ  is 
the  head.  This  view  of  the  nature  of  society  shows  the 
absurdity  of  all  theories  of  the  church  which  make 
connection  with  the  church  the  means  of  regeneration. 
This  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  a  man  must  become 
a  member  of  society  in  order  to  be  a  human  being; 
that  the  atmosphere  creates  the  lungs,  or  that  the  light 
makes  the  eye.  The  truth  is,  that  a  man  becomes  a 
Christian  and  a  member  of  the  church  at  the  same 
time  by  the  same  act  of  God ;  but  in  the  order  of  na- 
ture he  must  become  a  Christian  first. 

The  same  idea  of  society  is  conveyed  in  other  ima- 
ges of  Scripture  besides  that  of  a  body.  For  instance, 
the  images  of  a  tree  (Rom.  xi.),  a  fold  under  one  shep- 
herd (John  X.),  a  city  or  state  (Phil.  iii.  20,  with  Eph. 
ii.  19).  See  Potter  on  Church  Govennneat,  Chap  I. ; 
2[aso)is  Plea  for  Communion,  at  the  beginning. 

2d.  It  is  a  society  of  men.  The  angels  are  our  fel- 
low-servants (Rev.  xix.  10),  having  the  same  Master; 
they  are  children  of  the  same  great  family  (Job.  i.   6 ; 


Definitions  and  Descriptions.  15 

xxxviii.  7),  and  partakers  of  the  same  blessedness,  wliicli 
consists  in  communion  with  God,  whence  we  are  said 
"to  come  to  an  innumerable  company  of  angels"  (Heb. 
xii.  22).  Yet  they  are  what  they  are  in  a  dilterent 
mode  and  by  a  different  title,  not  redeemed  by  Christ, 
not  called  by  the  gospel,  not  born  again  of  the  Spirit, 
not  partakers  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  which  are  the 
highest  privileges  of  the  church,  and  its  characteristic 
marks.  (See  Heb.  ii.  16).  Witsius  ut  snj)7Yi,  24,  sec. 
6. 

3rd.  It  is  a  society  of  heUering  men.  As  I  have 
already  stated  in  the  course  on  History,  the  word  and 
the  life  of  the  church  constitute  its  form  or  formal 
nature;  and  faith  is  the  first  and  most  prominent 
exponent  of  the  life.  Now,  faith  cometh  by  hearing 
and  hearing  by  the  word  of  God.  The  word  comes  pro- 
miscuously to  all,  bat  is  not  believed  by  all.  Faith  makes 
the  difference  among  them.  The  faithful  have  a  new 
life.  Faith  is  mixed  with  the  word  (Heb.  iv.  2),  and  a 
Christian  is  the  result,  and  the  church  is  composed  of 
Christians.  The  object  of  faith  is  substantially  the 
same  in  all  ages,  and,  therefore,  faitli  is  substantially 
the  same;  and,  therefore,  the  church  is  substantially 
the  same  in  all  ages.  (See  Acts  ii.  41-47  ;  Heb.  iii.  5,  6 ; 
iv.  1,  cfec.) 

4th.  It  is  a  society  of  holy  men.  This  is  virtually 
included  in  the  last,  but  deserves  an  articulate  state- 
ment. (1  Peter  ii.  9;  1  Cor.  i.  2,  and  other  inscrip- 
tions to  the  Epistles).     (See    Witsius  ut  sup). 

5th.  It  is  a  society  called  of  God  (Gal.  i.  6  et  id). 
God  is  said  to  be  the  caller  (Rom.  ix.  11).  Hence  the 
church  is  the  church  of  the  living  God  (1  Tim.  iii.  15). 
Hence  the  church  is,  in  one  sense,  a  voluntary  society, 
and  in  another  sense  it  is  not.  The  call  of  God  is  a 
command,  as  well  as  an  invitation  to  every  man  who 
hears  it,  to  come  out  and  be  separate  from  the  world 
which  lies  in  wickedness.  If  he  is  destitute  of  faith, 
he  is  bound  to  seek  it,  and  if  he  seek  it  not,  he  is  lost. 


16  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

On  tlie  other  hand,  no  man  is  coerced  to  become  a 
member  of  the  church.  God  makes  his  people  willing 
in  the  day  of  his  power.  The  yjjizoi  are  called  sweetly 
as  well  as  powerfully  by  the  Spirit,  enaUed  and  -per- 
stiaded  to  receiA^e  Christ  as  he  is  offered  to  them  in  the 
gospel.  As  before  man,  the  church  is  a  voluntary  so- 
ciety; for  in  the  wdiole  matter  God  has  left  the  con- 
science free  from  the  commandments  of  men. 

God  is  a  sovereign  in  calling  (Rom.  ix.  11).  Many 
are  called  but  few  are  chosen  (Matt.  xx).  This  is  im- 
plied in  the  very  term  "  Ecclesia." 

6th.  It  is  a  society  called  of  God  Inj  the  word.  Hence 
where  there  is  no  word,  there  is  no  church.  (See 
under  third  head,  "  believing  men  ;"  see  1  Cor.  i.  21). 
This  word  is  law  and  gospel. 

7th.  The  church  is  called  out  of  the  whole  huviaii 
race ;  first,  the  Israelites  (Psa.  cxlvii.  19,  20) ;  then  the 
Gentiles  (Isa.  Iv.  5 ;  Acts  xv.  14.) 

8th.  The  end  of  this  calling  is  eonimunioa  ivith  Christ 
in  the  covenant  of  (jrace  (Prov.  ix.  4,  5  ;  Isa.  Iv.  2,  3 ; 
1  Cor.  i.  9  et  al.. 

9th.  The  church  is  one.  This  follows  from  all  that 
has  been  said. 

IV. 

Distinction  of  Church  External  and  Internal. 

It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  there  is  a  two-fold 
form,  or  if  you  prefer  the  expression,  state  and  condi- 
tion of  the  church  ;  the  one  internal  and  mystical^  in 
which  God  alone  judges  wdth  certainty  concerning  its 
members ;  the  other  external  and  visible^  in  which  man 
is  also  the  jndge.  To  refer  to  the  definition  of  the 
church  already  given,  we  may  note : 

1st.  That  there  is  a  tico-fold  callinrj  :  the  one  external 
by  the  v'ord  (Matt.  xx.  16)  ;  the  other  internal,  by  the 
Spirit  (Rom.  viii.  30). 

2d.  A  two-fold  faith  answering  to  this  calling :  the 
one  contvion,  found  even  in  reprobates,  by  wdiich,  as- 


Distinctions  of  Church.  17 

senting  to  the  truth  of  the  gospel,  they  experience 
some  transient  joy  (Acts  viii.  13;  Matt,  xiii,  20,  &c. ; 
Mark  vi.  20;  Heb.  vi.  4,  &c.) ;  the  other  savhig,  "the 
faith  of  God's  elect"  (Tit.  i.  1),  "faith  unfeigned"  (1 
Tim.  i.  5),  "faith  working  by  love"  (Gal.  v.  5). 

3d.  A  tivo-fold  holiness:  the  one  relatwe,  external^ 
federal,  consisting  in  the  segregation  from  the  com- 
munion of  the  impure  and  the  profane  (Ezra  ix.  2). 
In  this  sense  the  Israelites  are  called  "the  holy  seed." 
kSee  also  Eom.  xi.  16.  Such  a  holiness  is  recognized 
also  in  the  New  Testament.  (See  1  Cor.  Ad.  1,  2  ;  1 
Cor.  vii.  14).  The  other  is  ahsolute,  internal,  real,  the 
property  of  those  who  are  born  again,  a  conformity  to 
God  and  an  image  of  his  holiness  (Psa.  xciii.  5 ;  1  Pet. 
i.  15,  16). 

4th.  A  tvo-fold  conn n union  in  the  rorencmt  :  the  one 
external  in  the  signs  of  the  covenant,  belonging  to  the 
infant  offspring  of  parents  in  the  covenant  (Gen.  xvii. 
7 ;  Acts  ii.  39),  and  to  adults  who  make  a  credible  pro- 
fession of  their  faith,  though  they  possess  it  not  (John 
XV.  2,  6);  the  other,  an  internal,  sp'trltafd,  saving  com- 
munion in  the  things  signified,  such  as  remission  of 
sins,  the  law  written  upon  the  heart,  etc.  (Heb.  viii. 
10-12).  Compare  the  distinctions  in  Eomans  ii.  28, 
29,  Avhich  mav  be  analogically  transferred  to  Christi- 
anity.    ( Witmm,  Ex.  24,  §  11.) 

Hence  the  two-fold  form  or  condition  of  the  church, 
the  one  visdjle,  depending  upon  the  profession  of  faith 
and  the  observance  of  worship  ;  the  other  sjnritval  and 
invisdde,  which,  owing  its  origin  to  the  eternal  election 
of  God,  reaches  its  consummation  by  a  living  faith  and 
holiness.     (See  1  John  ii.  19.) 

With  this  distinction  correspond  very  nearly  the 
definitions  commonly  given,  and  given  in  our  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  Chap.  XXV.) 

The  church  Invisd/le  is  thus  defined:  See  Sec.  1. — 
"The  Church,"  c^-c.  Note  that  the  invisible  church 
catholic,  according  to  this  definition,  differs  from  the 


18  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

intemal,  mystical,  spiritual  clinrcli  of  wliicli  we  have 
been  speaking  only  in  this,  that  it  includes  all  the  elect 
of  all  ages,  past  and  future,  while  the  latter  includes 
only  those  who  at  any  given  period  are  actually  justi- 
fied and  sanctified.  (See  the  scriptural  references  in 
the  Confession.)  The  invisible  church  catholic  may  be 
considered  eiih.er  universally  and  'AadoAo'j,  with  respect  to 
the  whole  multitude  of  the  faithful  which  constitute  it, 
of  whatever  time  or  place  they  may  be;  or 2)ccrticularly 
and  xazafizpoc,  and  now,  concerning  that  which  reigns 
with  Christ  in  heaven,  and  now  concerning  that  which 
labors  and  sojourns  in  the  world  and  is  distributed  in 
particular  churches.  {Turretin,  Sec.  7,  Quest.  2,  Lect. 
18,  Yol.  III.  p.  9.) 

Note,  that  the  church  invisible  is  not  j'/rc^c'^/rrt//?/ 
recognized  at  all  by  the  Church  of  Rome ;  they  make 
a  distinction  between  the  church  militant  and  the 
church  triumphant.  The  church  militant,  which  is 
also  visible,  is  the  Roman  Catholic,  out  of  which  there 
is  no  possibility  of  salvation.  To  this  church  they 
ascribe  all  the  attributes  of  the  true  or  invisible  church, 
unity,  catholicity,  holiness,  indefectibility,  etc.,  and 
thus  make  merchandize  of  souls.  The  great  champion 
of  Rome,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  Bellarmine,  thus  de- 
fines the  church  (See  Tarrethi  at  suj).) :  "  Coetuin  honvi- 
num,  ejusdem  Christianaefideiprofessione,  et  eorvndeni 
sacfrainentorum  coiiimunione  colli gatti'ni,  suh  recjindne 
legiti/iti  ovum,  p>(^^lorana,  ae  'p^'n^ci^p^f^c,  unius  Cltristi  in 
terris  vicarii,  Pontifcis  Iiomani,'' — a  definition  not 
draAvn  from  the  Scriptures,  but  made  to  serve  a  turn. 

The  church  visible  is  thus  defined  in  our  Confession 
of  Faith,  Chap.  XXV.  Sec.  2:  "The  Visible  Church, 
cV'C."  Tarretin  gives  a  definition  in  some  respects 
more  complete,  or  at  least  more  explicit.  It  is  as 
follows  (18,  2,  10,  p.  10):  '' Societas  hoinimim  p)rae- 
conio  evangelii  vocatorani  ad  anitrs  fidei  2yt'<f'''^sioneni^ 
eoTundem  sacrorurn  co-ininiuvionein,  et  ejusdein  ordinis 
ohservationem'' 


Distinctions  of  Church.  19 

Before  I  proceed  to  consider  the  contents  of  these 
definitions  of  the  church  visible,  I  will  say  a  word  on 
its  relation  to  the  church  invisible,  in  addition  to  what 
has   already  been  said  when  considering  the  general 
doctrine  of  the  church.     This  relation  is  suggested  by 
the  etymon  of  the  term  ''  ecclesia,''  and  is  contained  in 
the  notion  of  a  vocation,  or  rather   an  evocation  {ex- 
xaAz(v),  a  calling  out  of  the  mass  of  the  human  race. 
Both  are  referred,  the  church  visible  and  the  church 
invisible,  to  the  sovereign  purpose  of  God ;  of  wdiich 
the  whole  process  of  salvation  is  an  evolution.     That 
purpose  was  a  purpose  to  save,  "  not  merely  myriads 
of  men  as  individual  men,  but  myriads  of  sinners  as 
composing  a  mediatorial  body,  of  which  the  Mediator 
shall  be  the  head ;  a  mediatorial  kingdom  whose  gov- 
ernment shall  be  on  his  shoulders  forever;  a  church, 
the  Lamb's  bride,  of  which  he  shall  be  the  husband,  a 
bride  whose  beautiful  portrait  was  graven  upon  the 
palms  of  his  hands  and  whose  walls  were  continually 
before  him,  when  in  the  counsels  of  eternity  he  under- 
took  her    redemption.      "  Christ   did   not   undertake 
from    eternity  the    office    of   a   prophet    merely,    nor 
the   office    of    a    priest    merely,    but  as  the    result    of 
all    and  the  reward  of  all,  to  found  a  community,  to 
organize  a  government,  and  administer  therein  as  a  per- 
petual k'nigy    (JRohinson  on  the  Church,  pp.  38,  39,  and 
Appendix  to  Discourses  on  Bedenqjtion,  note  to  Dis. 
IV.)     Now  in  the  manifestation  and  fulfilment  of  this 
purpose  in  time,  "  the  ideal  zxhy-oc  of  the  covenant  of 
redemption  became  the  actual  xhizoi.     Inasmuch    as 
they  are  called  by  an  external  clesis  of  the  Word,  they 
are  gathered  in  successive  generations  to  constitute  the 
ecclesla  on  earth.     In  as  far  as  they  are  called  also  by 
the  internal  clesis  of  the  Spirit,  they  are  gathered  to 
constitute  the  invisible  ecclesla,  the  full  and  complete 
actual   of  the   eternal  ideal.     For  whilst,  indeed,  the 
effectual  call  of  the  Spirit  can  alone  fulfil  the  promise 
of  the  eternal  covenant  to  Messiah,  yet,  as  that  call  is 
2 


20  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

externally  throiigli  the  word  and  tlie  visible  ordinances, 
the  very  process  of  calling  and  jDreparing  the  elect  of 
God  creates  the  visible  church  in  the  very  image  of 
the  invisible,  and  it  is  in  this  visible  body  that  the 
Mediator  carries  on  his  administration,  works  by  his 
Spirit,  etc.,  and  it  is  by  this  body  that  he  carries  on  his 
purposes  of  mercy  toward  a  world  Ij^ing  in  wickedness." 
{Bohinson,  pp.  41,  42.)  See  also  Iiobinsorts  '^  Dis- 
courses Oil  JRede7nption,''  pp.  455  et  seq. 


General  Description  of  the  Church  Yisible. 

See  the  definitions  given  in  No.  IV.  Many  of  the 
features  of  the  visible  church  are  common  to  it  with 
the  church  invisible,  and  have  been  described  in  pre- 
ceding numbers.  III.,  IV.  It  is  a  society,  an  organ- 
ized society,  a  society  of  men,  a  society  called  of  God, 
a  society  called  by  the  word,  called  out  of  the  whole 
human  race,  a  society  subject  to  the  authority  of  Christ 
as  its  head. 

The  characteristic  features  of  the  church  visible, 
those  which  make  it  visible,  are,  according  to  the  defi- 
nitions : 

1st.  A  credible  profession  of  faith  and  holiness,  and 
not  real  faith  and  holiness,  as  the  term  of  membership 
and  communion  on  the  part  of  adults. 

2d.  The  right  of  infants,  children  of  such  credible 
professors,  to  the  initiating  sign  and  seal  of  the  cove- 
nant, recognizing  them  members  of  the  church,  in  some- 
what the  same  manner  as  minors  in  civil  society  are 
members  of  the  state. 

3d.  Certain  sacred  rites  and  forms  of  worship, 
through  which  this  credible  profession  is  made,  and 
the  covenant  state  of  infants  recognized. 

4th.  A  certain  "  order"  or  government,  or  system  of 
discipline,  in  the  hands  of  church  officers,  called  of  God 
and  chosen  by  the  people. 


Genekal  Description  of  the  Church  Yisible.    21 

5tli.  The  possession  and. use  of  oracles,  ministry, 
ordinances,  for  the  ingathering  of  the  elect  and  their 
sanctification  ;  in  other  words,  ^for  the  completion  of 
the  mystical  body  of  Christ,  the  church  invisible. 
(See  Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  XXY.,  Sec.  III.)  Out 
of  the  church  visible  there  is  "  no  ordinary  possibility 
of  salvation."     {Ihid.,  Sec.  II.) 

6th.  Catliolicity.  I  mention  this  as  a  distinctive 
feature  of  the  church  visible,  although  it  belongs  also 
to  the  church  invisible,  for  the  reason  that  the  term 
catholic  is  used  in  several  different  senses :  (1),  In  the 
widest  sense,  embracing  alldifferencesof  places,  times, 
persons,  and  states,  and  denoting  the  whole  family  of 
God,  in  heaven  and  earth,  militant  and  triumphant, 
past,  present,  and  future.  In  this  sense  it  is  properly 
applied  only  to  the  church  invisible.  (2),  In  a  narrower 
sense,  for  the  church  under  the  gospel,  in  opposition 
to  the  church  under  the  law ;  and  this  in  regard  to 
places,  persons,  and  times,  {a),  Places.  Christian 
church  no  longer  restricted  to  one  place  of  w^orship. 
(John  iv.  21,  23  ;  1  Tim.  ii.  8.)  (/>),  Persons.  Chris- 
tian church  has  no  respect  to  differences  of  family, 
rank,  nation,  etc.  Neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  male  nor 
female,  etc.  (Rom.  x.  12  ;  Acts  x.  35  ;  Col.  iii.  11 ;  Apoc. 
V.  9.)  (c).  Times.  The  Christian  church  must  continue 
till  the  consummation  of  the  ages.  In  the  sense  thus 
explained,  the  term  catholic  is  also  applied  to  the 
whole  church  on  earth,  in  opposition  to  "particular 
churches,"  existing  in  certain  places  or  at  certain 
times.  (3),  In  an  abusive  sense,  as  equivalent  to 
"  orthodox.'"  Commonly  so  used  by  the  Fathers  after 
Augustine,  to  denote  a  particular  church  which  main- 
tained its  communion  with  the  church  universal,  and 
had  not  been  separated  from  it  by  heresy  or  schism. 
Thus,  the  "Catholic  church  in  Smyrna,"  "in  Alexan- 
dria," etc.  This  use  of  the  term  seems  to  have  become 
common  during,  and  in  consequence  of,  the  discussions 
about  the  Montanists,  Donatists,  Novatians,  and  other 


22  EcclesioloctY. 

catliaric  of  early  times.  Unfortunately,  however, 
catholicity  was  made  to  depend  upon  official  succes- 
sion, instead  of  the  succession  of  the  truth ;  and  this 
stupendous  error  led,  in  the  course  of  time,  to  Popery. 
(See  on  the  word  Catholic,  W/'hius,  id  ^u})-  xxiv.  20  ; 
Tvrrethi,  L.  xviii.,  q.  6,  Yol.  III.,  p.  27,  28;  Pearson 
Oil  the  Creed,  Art.  IX. ;  Suicers  Thesau.  &uh  vei'h.) 

It  is  in  the  second  of  the  senses  above  given  that 
our  Confession  uses  the  word  of  the  church  visible. 
"  All  those  throughout  the  Avorld." 

7th.  Unity.  Same  remark  about  this  term  as  the 
last.  The  true  idea  of  unity  in  the  church  visible  will 
be  explained  when  we  come  to  consider  the  Presby- 
terian system,  in  opposition  to  Popery  and  Indepen- 
dency. 

So  much  for  the  general  features  of  the  church 
visible.  Many  of  these  Avill  be  described  more  fully 
hereafter,  as  they  are  connected  with  the  proofs  of  the 
existence  of  such  a  church,  and  with  the  mode  in  which 
it  is  maintained  and  perpetuated. 

YI. 

Pkoofs  of  the  Existence  of  a  Church  Yisible. 

1st.  To  say  nothing  of  the  dim  traces  of  such  a  body 
in  the  garden  of  Eden,  to  be  discerned  in  the  skins 
with  which  our  first  parents  were  clothed,  (implying 
that  the  animals  slain  had  been  slain  in  sacrifice,  and 
that  the  form  of  public  Avorship,  by  which  a  j;^^^^^'^?'^/^ 
of  fa'dh  in  the  promise  of  God  was  made,  had  been 
already  instituted) ;  nor  to  insist  upon  the  clearer  traces 
of  it  in  the  history  of  Cain  and  Abel ;  {puhlie  inorsh'q) 
and  profession  of  faith,  Gen.  iv.  4,  with  Heb.  xi.  4; 
— stated  times  of  worship,  vs.  3,  "  at  the  end  of  days  ;" 
— -a  stated  place,  marked  by  some  insignia  of  God's 
presence,  a  foreshadowing  of  the  tabernacle  and  the 
temple,  vs.  16,  and  compare  14,  "from  thy  face  shall  I 
be  hid ;"  exconiinunication,  vs.  14,  compare  with  vs.  12, 


Pkoofs  of  the  Existence  of  a  Church  Visible.  23 

16 — ajwstasy  from  a  religions  profession,  vs.  16) ;  nor 
upon  the  additional  trace  of  such  a  body  in  the  times 
of  Enos,  when  "men  began  to  call  themselves  by  the 
name  of  the  Lord,"  Gen.  iv.  26 — or,  as  it  is  explained 
afterwards  in  the  history,  vi.  2,  "sons  of  God,"  in  op- 
position, probably,  to  the  apostate  posterit}^  of  Cain, 
who  were  called  "sons  of  men,"  or,  as  we  say,  "men  of 
the  world," — see  Gen.  iv.  17,  19,  22,  and  compare  Psa. 
xvii.  14  ;  iv.  6  ;  nor  again  in  the  times  of  Noah  (when, 
in  consequence  of  the  intermarriage  of  the  "sons  of 
God"  with  the  "  daughters  of  men,"  or  the  members  of 
the  true  church  with  apostates — see  Gen  vi.  1,  etc.,  and 
compare  Num.  xxv.  1,  &:c. ;  Ezra.  ix.  2,  Neh.  xiii.  26, 
27  ;  universal  apostasy  was  the  result) ;  nor  upon  the 
manifest  tracks  of  a  patriarchal  church,  before  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  with  Abraham,  (see  the  his- 
tor}",  specially  the  account  of -Melchisedek,  Gen.  xiv. 
18,  kc. ;  Heb.  vii.) ;  not  to  insist  upon  any  of  these, 
the  visible  church  becomes  conspicuous  from  the  time 
of  the  ecclesiastical  covenant  with  Abraham,  down 
through  the  whole  history  of  his  descendants  in  the 
line  of  Jacob,  to  the  advent  of  the  Messiah.  This 
clmrch,  or  "kalial  Jehovah,"  embraced  all  who  had  the 
token  of  the  covenant  in  their  flesh,  whether  regener- 
ated or  not,  whether  in  or  out  of  Judea  (Acts  ii.  5). 
Now,  if  such  a  church  existed  before  the  advent  of 
Messiah — a  church  founded  upon  faith  (or  the  credible 
profession  thereof),  in  the  promise  of  salvation,  with 
solemn  ordinances  of  worship,  by  which  that  profession 
was  made  and  constantly  renewed ;  a  church  embrac- 
ing the  infant  offspring  of  such  professors,  and  possess- 
ing a  sign  and  seal  by  which  this  status  of  infants 
was  recognized ;  a  church  with  a  government  and  dis- 
cipline in  the  hands  of  men  appointed  of  God,  and  in 
general  with  a  ministry,  oracles  and  ordinances,  for  the 
edification  of  the  true  Avorshippers ;  a  church,  too,  as 
will  appear  hereafter,  catholic  in  its  constitution  and 
design,  though  not  so  in  fact  to  any  great  extent  under 


24  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

the  law ;  if  such  a  church  existed  then,  what  has  became 
of  it  ?  Its  ceremonial  form  has  been  abolished,  but  it 
has  not  ceased  to  be  the  church  on  that  account,  any 
more  than  the  creature  in  its  chrysalis  condition  ceases 
to  be  when  it  passes  into  the  higher  and  freer  sphere 
of  the  gorgeous  butterfly.  Nor  does  it  cease  to  be  be- 
cause the  people  who  pre-eminently  enjoyed  its  privi- 
leges at  first  have  been  deprived  of  them ;  any  more 
than  the  olive  tree  has  ceased  to  be  because  the 
natural  branches  have  been  broken  off  and  wild  ones 
have  been  grafted  in.  He  who  denies  the  existence  of 
a  visible  church  since  the  advent  of  Christ,  is  bound 
to  show  that  the  church  before  Christ  has  been  abol- 
ished, both  in  law  and  fact.  (See  Ifason,  Vol.  IV., 
pp.  5-8  ;  Essay  I.) 

2d.  "  The  Old  Testament  scriptures  proceed  on  the 
supposition  that  the  visible  church  state,  co-extensive 
with  the  Kedeemer's  kingdom  on  earth,  was  not  to  cease 
at  the  introduction  of  the  gospel  dispensation."  (Mason 
ut  sup.,  p.  8,  <fec.) 

(1),  There  are  numerous  predictions  concerning  the 
church,  and  numerous  promises  to  her  in  her  public 
capacity,  which  are  still  unfulfilled,  and  can  never  be 
fulfilled,  if  her  visible  unity  be  not  asserted.  See 
Isa.  Ixvi.  12,  22 ;  xlix.  23 ;  Ix.  3,  5.  Now,  upon  the 
principle  that  "  God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but 
of  the  living"  (Matt,  xxii.),  the  church  must  continue 
to  exist  in  order  to  receive  the  fulfilment  of  these 
promises.     [Mason,  IV.,  p.  8,  &c.) 

(2),  The  natiire  of  many  of  these  promises  implies 
that  the  narrow  ceremonial  trammels  by  which  it  was 
confined  should  be  done  away.  The  promises,  there- 
fore, imply  at  once  perpetuity  and  change,  and  con- 
sequently, that  the  change  is  not  inconsistent,  much 
less  incompatible,  with  perpetuity. 

Note  {a)  that  these  promises  contemplate  the  church 
as  one ;  {!))  that  this  unity  is  not  ascribed  to  her  as 
composed  of  the  elect  alone.     The  church  is  not  rep- 


Proofs  of  the  Existence  of  a  Church  Visible.    25 

resented  as  consisting  of  a  multitude  of  independent 
associations,  but  as  a  great  whole ;  and  further,  as  a 
visihle  body,  her  "light"  Adsible,  the  "brightness  of 
her  rising"  attracting  the  "kings,"  etc.  (See  also  Isa. 
liv.  1,  2,  for  a  description  implying  the  same  thing.) 

Note  the  difference  between  the  unity  and  the  one- 
7iess  (or  oneliness)  of  the  church.  The  papists  indentify 
them;  the  Protestants  predicate  unity  of  the  church 
invisible;  oneness  of  the  church  visible.  See  Litton 
Church  of  Christ,  p.  1,  chap.  1,  sec.  1,  (American 
Edition,  pp.  268,  ff.)  for  this  unity ;  p.  1,  chap.  1,  sec. 
2,  pp.  335,  ff.)  for  the  oneness.  It  is  in  this  last  sense 
that  Mason  hei'e  calls  the  church  one. 

3rd.  "The  language  of  the  New  Testament  implies 
that  an  external  visible  church  state  was  not  abolished 
Avith  the  law  of  Moses."     {Mason,  IV.,  11,  <fec.) 

"  The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  never  go  about 
to  jf;?'6»?.'6  that  there  is  a  visible  church  catholic ; 
far  less  do  they  speak  of  it  as  originating  in  the  evan- 
gelical dispensation ;  but  they  assume  its  existence  as 
a  point  which  no  Christian  in  their  days  ever  thought 
of  disputing."  The  doctrine  of  the  one  visible  church 
is  interwoven  with  the  texture  of  their  language. 
(Acts  vii.  38:  ii.  47;  viii.  3  :  1  Cor.  xii.  28,  &c. ;  Rom. 
xvi.  23;  1  Cor.  x.  32;  xv.  9,  &c.,  &c.)  The  church  to 
which  the  Lord  added  daily  such  as  should  be  saved, 
Avas  not  the  body  of  the  elect,  for  no  addition  can  be 
made  to  them ;  nor  a  single  congregation,  unless  God 
had  no  more  people  to  be  saved  in  Jerusalem  than, 
together  with  mere  professors,  were  sufficient  for  one 
pastoral  charge.  Nor  is  it  to  be  imagined  that  Saul 
confined  his  persecutions  to  a  single  congregation,  nor 
that  he  was  able  to  pick  out  the  elect.  Nor  will  a 
solder  man  allege  that  God  has  set  no  officers  but  in 
one  congregation,  or  that  they  have  no  functions  to- 
ward any  but  His  elect ;  or  that  all  whom  He  hath  set 
are  themselves  of  the  number ;  nor  yet  that  "  offence  " 
can  never  be  given  to  any  but  the  elect,"  ...     "  The 


26  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

plirases  referred  to  (in  tlie  above  cited  passages)  being 
utterly  inapplicable  either  to  a  single  congregation,  or 
to  tlie  body  of  tlie  redeemed,  must  designate  another 
and  different  society,  which  can  be  no  other  than  what 
we  have  called  the  visible  church  catholic.  Too  ex- 
tensive for  partial  assemblies,  too  notorious  for  any 
secret  election  of  men,  and  yet  a  church — the  church — 
it  is  general,  external,  and  but  OXE." 

The  phraseology  of  the  New  Testament  on  this  sub- 
ject, as  on  many  others,  is  borrowed  from  that  of  the 
old.  "Ecclesia"  is  the  same  as  "kahal,"  and  the 
Seventy  constantly  use  the  former  to  render  the  latter. 
The  Jews,  then,  would  understand  by  "  ecclesia  Theou," 
the  "  kahal  Jehovah."  The  Gentiles  Avould  (the  Greeks, 
I  mean),  understand  "ecclesia"  by  itself,  but  would 
know  nothing  of  "ecclesia  Theou"  without  looking 
into  the  Jewish  scriptures,  the  Old  Testament.  The 
Avord  "  church "  is  like  the  word  "Christ"  in  this  re- 
spect. "  Neither  the  nature  of  the  church,  nor  the 
office  of  her  head,  is  to  be  understood  without  an  ap- 
peal to  the  same  scriptures.  Consequently  that  very 
rule  which  expounds  the  "  Christ  of  God"  as  signifying 
one  AVho  was  qualified  b}'  the  Father's  appointment 
and  by  the  measureless  communication  of  the  divine 
Spirit  to  be  a  Saviour  for  men,  will  oblige  us  to  ex- 
pound the  "church  of  God"  as  signifying  that  great 
visible  society  which  professes  his  name.  (See  Mason, 
pp.  14-17.) 

4tli.  "The  account  which  the  New  Testament  gives 
of  the  church  confirms  the  doctrine  of  the  visible 
unity."     {Ilason  ut  t^ujyra,  p.  17,  &c.) 

(1),  One  of  the  commonest  appellations  is  "  the  king- 
dom of  heaven:"  one,  because  the,  not  a,  kingdom.  The 
parable  of  the  "wheat  and  tares"  teaches  that  it  is  visi- 
ble as  well  as  one.  (Here  read  pp.  18,  etc.,  in  proof 
that  the  parable  designates  the  church,  and  not  civil 
society).  So  also  the  parable  of  the  "net"  and  the 
"virgins."     These  parables  of  course  cannot  describe 


Proofs  of  the  Existence  of  a  Church  Visible.  27 

tlie  body  of  tlie  elect ;  and  it  would  be  absurd  to  limit 
them  to  a  single  congregation.     Ergo,  &g. 

(2),  The  image  of  a  "body"  in  1  Cor.  xii.  It  plainly 
signifies  a  vhole.  Then  v^hat  whole?  Not  the  church 
at  Corinth,  far  less  a  particular  congregation,  unless 
the  commission  of  the  apostles  and  the  use  of  all  spir- 
itual gifts  extend  no  further.  Not  the  church  of  the 
elect,  for  there  are  no  "schisms"  in  that  body  as  such. 
Nor  can  it  be  affirmed,  but  at  the  expense  of  all  fact  and 
consistency,  that  God  hath  set  no  officers  except  in  the 
church  of  His  redeemed.  For  u]5on  that  supposition 
no  church  officer  could  ever  exercise  his  office  toward 
any  non-elected  man ;  the  pastoral  relation  could  never 
be  fixed  without  knowing  beforehand  who  are  the  elect 
of  God,  or  else  no  person,  however  blasphemous  and 
abominable,  could  be  kept  out  of  a  church,  because 
such  "blasphemer"  and  "injurious"  may  possibly  be  a 
"chosen  vessel."  The  body,  then,  here  described,  must 
be  the  visible  church  catholic.     (See  Mason  ut  sujyra.) 

It  may  be  further  noted  that  this  bod}^  is  represented, 
here  and  in  Eph.  iv.,  as  endowed  with  sundry  gifts, 
means  of  salvation  and  edification,  "ministry,  oracles 
and  ordinances."  These  means  of  salvation  are  exter- 
nal and  visihle;  a  visible  Bible,  a  visible  ministry,  visi- 
ble worship,  sacraments,  discipline,  etc. ;  and  if  the 
church  and  the  ordinances  committed  to  her  are  not 
of  opposite  natures,  the  fact  that  the  ordinances  have 
a  solid  external  existence  is  proof  that  the  church  has 
also.  Indeed,  if  the  New  Testament  church  is  not  the 
same  great  society  which  God  formerly  erected  for  the 
praise  of  His  glory,  and  to  which  he  committed  the 
ancient  oracles  (Rom.  iii.  2),  then  these  oracles  form 
no  part  of  the  trust  committed  to  the  church  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  belong  not  to  the  rule  of  her  faith, 
which  is  contrary  to  the  whole  drift  of  Scripture  teach- 
ing in  regard  to  the  relation  between  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments.     [Mason,  ut  supra.) 

Finally,  the  general  principle  of  the  church  visible 


28  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

is  so  inseparable  from  tlie  Christian  style  and  doc- 
trine, that  its  most  strenuous  opposers  are  uncon- 
sciously admitting  it  every  hour  of  their  lives.  They 
talk  habitually  of  the  "  church,"  the  "  faith  of  the 
church,"  the  "  worship  of  the  church,"  "God's  dealings 
with  his  church,"  and  a  thousand  things  of  like  im- 
port; and  they  mean  by  "church,"  in  such  phrases, 
something  different  from  "the  elect,"  and  from  a  "par- 
ticular "  congregation ;"  and  that  something,  if  they  will 
analize  it,  will  turn  out  to  be  the  visible  church  catholic, 
or  the  "  aggregate  body  of  those  wdio  profess  the  true 
religion,  all  making  up  o?ie  society,  of  wliich  the  Bible  is 
the  statute-book,  Jesus  Christ  the  head,  and  a  covenant 
relation  the  uniting  bond.     {Mason,  p.  26.) 

VII. 

First  Organization  of  the  Church  Visible. 

I  noticed  at  the  beginning  of  No.  VI.  tlie  traces  of 
the  church  in  the  times  before  Abraham.  But,  until 
the  time  of  the  father  of  the  faithful,  it  cannot  be  said 
to  have. been  formally  organized  upon  the  principle  of 
visible  unity.  Until  Abraham's  time  no  separation  had 
been  made  betw^een  the  family  and  the  church  (as  there 
had  been  virtually  betw^een  the  church  and  the  state) ; 
9102V  the  line  is  drawn  wdtliin  the  family  itself,  part  be- 
ing in  the  church,  and  part  out  of  it.  The  account  of 
this  organization  is  to  be  looked  for  among  the  trans- 
actions of  that  memorable  period  which  elapsed  be- 
tween the  call  of  Abraham  in  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  and 
the  birth  of  Isaac.  On  the  first  of  these  occasions  Je- 
hovah gave  him  a  double  promise:  (1),  A  numerous 
progeny  and  great  personal  prosperity  (Gen.  xii.  2,  8). 
(2).  That  he  should  be  the  medium  of  conveying  ex- 
tensive blessings  to  the  world  (vs.  3).  And  to  these 
promises  may  be  referred  all  the  communications 
which  God  subsequently  made  to  him.  Called  up  at 
different  times,  explained,  expounded  and  confirmed, 


First  Organization  of  the  Church  Visible.       29 

each  one  of  them  became  the  basis  of  an  appropriate 
covenant. 

1st.  The  first  promise  is  repeated  (Gen.  xii.  7), 
with  an  engagement  to  bestow  upon  the  progeny  of 
Abraham  the  land  of  Canaan,  which  was  afterwards 
(xiii.  14-17)  confirmed  in  the  most  ample  terms.  And 
again,  in  the  declining  years  of  Abraham,  the  Lord 
came  to  him  in  a  vision,  and  having  cheered  him  with 
this  gracious  assurance,  "I  am  thy  shield,  and  thy  ex- 
ceeding great  reward,"  (xv.  1) ;  the  promise  was  re- 
newed and  solemnly  ratified  as  a  covenant  (vs.  8-21). 
The  promise  of  a  posterity  having  been  thus  sealed, 
never  occurs  again  by  itself. 

2d.  Fourteen  years  after  the  date  of  this  event,  God 
appeared  again  to  Abraham,  and  made  another  covenant 
with  him.  I  should  prefer  to  say  that  there  were  tioo 
stages  of  the  covenant^  rather  than  two  covenants :  one 
stage  in  which  Abraham  appears  as  the  mere  recipient 
of  the  promise,  rather  than  as  a  party  (Gen.  xv.) ;  the 
other  in  which  he  appears  as  a  party  (Gen.  xvii.)  It  is 
recorded  in  Gen.  xvii.  1-14  (which  read).  What  was 
this  covenant?  Not  a  covenant,  either  of  works  or 
grace,  for  eternal  life.  For  Abraham  had  been  "justi- 
fied by  faith  without  the  works  of  the  law,"  and  had 
been  interested  in  the  covenant  of  God's  grace  before 
this.  His  eternal  life  had  been  secured  many  years. 
Nor  was  it  merely  a  personal  or  domestic  covenant. 
This,  too,  had  been  concluded  long  before,  as  has 
been  shown.  It  recognizes,  indeed,  all  that  was  in- 
cluded in  the  personal  covenant,  which  it  might  other- 
wise be  supposed  to  supersede ;  but  it  has  features  of 
its  own,  so  peculiar,  that  it  cannot  be  considered  in 
any  other  light  than  that  of  a  distinct  engagement.  For, 
besides  the  solemnity  with  which  it  was  introduced, 
and  which  would  hardly  have  preceded  a  mere  repeti- 
tion of  former  grants,  it  contained  neto  matter ;  it  con- 
stituted new  relations  and  was  affirmed  in  an  extraor- 
dinary manner.   (See  Mason,  page  33,  et  secj.)  (1),  ]}^ew 


30  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

Matter-.  "Father  of  many  nations,"  meaning  not  at  all 
that  he  should  be  a  literal  father  of  many  nations,  but 
that  he  should  be  the  means  of  blessing  to  all  the  fami- 
lies of  the  earth,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  become  Avhat 
no  other  man,  in  the  sense  of  the  covenant,  ever  did 
or  ever  can  become.  (See  Kom.  iv.  13-17  ;  Gal.  iii.  7, 
8,  9,  29.)  .He  should  be  the  father  of  a  sj^iritual  seed, 
as  well  as  the  father,  according  to  the  other  covenant 
(xv.,  see  above)  of  a  riatnral.  Gal.  iii.  6,  7,  shows  that 
the  covenant  in  Gen.  xv.  was  not  a  promise  as  to  the 
"natural  seed"  onl}'.  Indeed,  the  frequent  reference  to 
Gen.  XV.  6  by  Paul,  in  proof  of  justilication  by  faith 
alone,  without  works,  shows  that  the  covenant  described 
in  that  chapter  was  a  covenant  for  spiritual  blessings  ; 
and  this  confirms  the  view  that  thet'e  were  not  two 
covenants,  but  two  stages  of  the  same  covenant.  (See 
p.  29).  (2),  Neio  relatiojis  :  "  To  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and 
to  thy  seed  after  thee."  Whatever  relation  is  here  ex- 
pressed, it  grew  out  of  the  covenant. 

It  could  not  be,  therefore,  Abraham's  relation  to  God 
as  the  God  of  his  salvation,  for  in  that  sense  God  was 
his  God  long  before.  It  emlu-aced  his  seed,  too,  and 
God  did  not  now  engage  to  be  their  God  with  respect 
to  eternal  life,  for  all  that  Avas  settled  in  the  covenant 
of  grace,  and  the  privilege  could  not  reach  beyond 
those  who  were  the  actual  partakers  of  the  same  pre- 
cious faith  Avitli  Abraham.  Whereas,  in  the  sense  of 
this  covenant,  God  was  the  God  of  all  Abraham's  seed, 
without  exception,  under  the  limitations  which  re- 
stricted the  covenant  operation,  first  to  Isaac  and  after- 
wards to  Jacob,  including  such  as  should  choose  their 
God,  their  faith,  and  their  society.  For  he  was  to  be 
their  God  in  thei?'  generations,  i.  e.,  as  soon  as  a  new  in- 
dividual of  this  seed  was  generated,  he  was  within  the 
covenant,  and,  according  to  the  tenor  of  it,  God  was  his 
God.  We  conclude  then,  that  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham and  his  seed  contemplated  them,  not  primarily 
nor  immediately  as  of  the  election  of  grace,  but  as  an 


First  Organization  of  the  Church  Visible.       31 

aggregate  wliicli  it  severed  from  tlie  bulk  of  mankind, 
and  placed  in  a  social  character  under  peculiar  rela- 
tions to  the  "  most  high  God." 

To  define  precisely  the  nature  of  this  correspondence 
we  must  go  a  step  further,  and  ascertain  who  are  meant 
by  the  "seed."  It  cannot  be  the  carnal  descendants  of 
Abraham  exclusively,  for  (a),  three  large  branches  of 
that  seed  were  actually  shut  out  of  the  covenant,  i.  e., 
the  children  of  Ishmael,  Esau  and  Keturah.  (h),  The 
covenant  provided  for  the  admission  of  others  who 
never  belonged  to  that  seed.  See  Gen.  xvii.  12:  "Not 
of  thy  seed."  This  principle  was  also  acted  upon  un- 
der the  law  of  Moses,  when  the  seed  of  Abraham  had 
become  a  nation.  Ex.  xii.  48,  for  the  stranger's  right 
to  the  passover.  See  also  Deut.  xxiii.  7,  8,  where  the 
Egyptian,  descending  from  Ham,  is  put  on  the  same 
footing  with  the  Edomite,  descending  from  Abraham, 
(c),  Abraham  was  to  be  the  father  of  many  nations; 
"the  many  nations"  being  equivalent  to  "all  the  fami- 
lies of  the  earth,"  in  one  form  of  the  promise.  (Comp. 
Rom.  iv.  with  Gal.  iii.)  These  "  many  nations"  were 
the  "  seed"  of  him  who  was  their  "  father :"  the  seed  in 
the  same  sense  in  which  he  was  the  "father."  But  the 
covenant  WMS  with  Abraham  and  his  seed;  therefore,- 
these  "  many  nations"  were  included  in  the  cove- 
nant. 

3d.  This  covenant  was  affirmed  in  an  extraordinary 
manner,  viz. :  by  the  rite  of  circumcision.  The  uses  of 
this  rite  were  two  :  (1),  It  certified  to  the  seed  of 
Abraham,  that  the  covenant  with  their  great  progenitor 
was  in  force  ;  that  they  were  entitled  to  all  the  benefits 
immediately  derived  from  it.  (2),  It  was  a  seal  of  "the 
righteousness,  etc.  (Rom.  iv.  11),  and  as  such  certi- 
fied ;  (a),  that  Abraham  was  justified  by  faith;  (^), 
that  the  doctrine  and  the  privilegeof  the  righteousness 
of  faith  were  to  be  perpetuated  among  his  seed  by  the 
operation  of  God's  covenant  with  him ;  and,  therefore, 
that  all  who  helieved  were  children  of  Abraham,  and 


32  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

personally  interested  in  the  righteousness  by  which  he 
was  justified. 

II.  This  covenant  never  lias  been  annulled.  See  the 
argument  in  the  third  of  Galatians,  where  the  apostle 
shows,  (1),  that  the  Sinaitic  covenant  did  not  and  could 
not  annul  it;  and  (2),  that  it  was  still  in  force,  so  that 
all  who  believed  were  Abraham's  children  or  seed,  and 
heirs  of  the  promise,  (vs.  29).  But  more  particularly, 
it  is  to  be  noted,  that  according  to  Paul :  1st,  The 
promise  that  Abraham  should  be  the  father  of  many 
nations  could  not  be  fufilled  until  the  Gentiles  were 
brought  in,  or  until  the  Christian  dispensation.  (Comp. 
Rom.  iv.)  The  "  promise"  upon  which  his  argument 
turns  is,  "I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed 
after  thee."  The  Abrahamic  covenant,  therefore,  is 
still  in  force.  (Comp.  Heb.  viii.  6-13.)  2d,  If  not,  then 
the  visible  eJidvch,  under  the  gospel,  is  not  in  covenant 
with  God  ;  and  -if  no  covenant,  no  promises ;  if  no  pro- 
mises, then  the  Christian  church  is  worse  off  than  the 
Levitical.  See  Isa.  lix.  20-22,  which  is  a  prediction  of 
New  Testament  times,  but  it  has  no  meaning  if  there 
is  no  covenant  with  the  Christian  visible  church. 
(Comp.  Rom.  xi.  26,  where  the  apostle  represents  the 
fulfilment  of  the  promise  as  still  future.)  But  the 
promise,  by  its  very  terms,  is  given  to  the  church,  "in 
covenant ;"  her  members,  in  constant  succession,  are 
the  "  seed"  out  of  whose  mouth  the  Spirit  shall  not  de- 
part; and  when  the  Jews  are  restored,  they  will  be 
brought  into  this  very  covenanted  church,  and  be  again 
recognized  as  a  part  of  the  seed.  3d,  In  arguing  the 
rejection  of  the  Jews,  and  their  future  restoration,  and 
the  vocation  of  the  Gentiles,  the  apostle  reasons  upon 
false  principles,  if  the  Abrahamic  covenant  has  ended. 
(See  Rom.  xi.  17-24). 

Add  the  following:  Acts  ii.  38,  39,  where  note  the 
following  points. 

1st.  The  sameness  of  the  forra  {See  Introductory 
Lecture  on  History)  of  the  church.     "  The  promise  is 


First  Organization  of  the  Church  Visible.      33 

unto  you,"  &g.  It  matters  not  whether  this  proraise  be 
that  of  the  Messiah  or  the  Spirit,  for  they  go  together, 
and  one  is  nothing  without  the  other.  The  revelation 
of  salvation,  upon  which  the  church  is  organized,  is 
then  the  same  under  the  law  and  under  the  gospel. 

2d.  The  constituents  of  the  church  are  the  same, 
believers  and  their  cJiildren. 

3d.  The  differences  in  the  church,  under  the  two 
dispensations,  are  these :  (1),  Under  the  gospel  the 
requirements  for  church  communion  are  more  spiritual 
than  under  the  law  ("repent"),  and  imply  a  larger 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost — ("ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.")  (2),  The  initiatory  seal  is  changed: 
"baptism,"  instead  of  circumcision.  (3),  The  church 
is  more  catholic  under  the  gospel,  "to  all  that  are  afar 
off,"  &c.  Some  of  these  points  Avill  be  considered  more 
fully  hereafter.     See  also  Acts  iii.  25,  26. 

Note  the  mistake  which  was  made  by  the  Pharisees 
who  came  to  John  the  Baptist  (Matt,  iii.),  and  which 
John  removes  so  effectually  in  verse  9th,  that  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  and  the  Sinaitic  were  the  same  ; 
and,  therefore,  that  until  the  Abrahamic  covenant  ex- 
pired, the  Jews  could  not  be  cast  off.  See  and  com- 
pare Gal.  iii.,  with  Heb.  viii.  6-13,  and  Acts  iii.  22-26). 
Paul,  as  well  as  John  the  Baptist,  evidently  taught  that 
the  Abrahamic  covenant  might  survive  the  casting  off 
of  the  Jews. 

In  the  foregoing  account  of  the  nature  of  the  cove- 
nant with  Abraham,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  community 
organized  upon  it  possessed  the  three  elements  which 
are  essential  to  the  constitution  of  such  a  body.  These 
elements,  according  to  Whately  {Essays  o?i  the  Kiinj- 
dom  of  Christ,  Es.  2),  are  officers,  rules,  and  penalties 
by  which  the  rules  are  enforced:  («),  Officers;  the 
church  being  at  first  "a  church  in  the  house;"  all  offi- 
cial authority  was  lodged  in  the  head  of  the  house. 
(Ij),  Rules;  obedience  to  God's  commandments,  and 
faith  in  his  promise — both  signified  by  the  sign  of  cir- 


34  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

cumcision.  (c),  Penalties ;  expulsion  or  excommuni- 
cation. The  officers  under  the  Sinaitic  covenant  were 
priests  hucI  Levites ;  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  patriarchal  or  family  church  continued,  even  un- 
der the  outward  Levitical ;  and  at  a  later  period  (after 
the  captivity)  became  more  prominent  than  the  Leviti- 
cal form.  In  this  the  elders  were  the  officers ;  and  in- 
deed, circumcision  and  the  passover  were  eminently 
family  institutions.  And  the  church,  after  the  coming 
of  Christ,  emerges  once  more  as  a  church,  under  the 
government  of  elders.  The  object  of  faith  and  the 
moral  law  were  the  same  in  all  the  stages.  The  penalty 
of  excommunication  was  also  the  same.  The  visible 
community  was  the  same,  therefore,  through  all  changes 
of  dispensation.  And  the  definition  of  this  community 
is  the  definition  of  the  visible  church.  The  church  that 
now  is,  therefore,  was  organized  In  the  family  of  Abra- 
ham. 

VIII. 
Method  of  Perpetuating  the  Church  Visible. 

The  next  question  that  claims  our  attention  is  the 
mode  in  which  the  visible  church  is  perpetuated,  or 
its  privileges,  the  privileges  of  the  Abrahamic  cov- 
enant, transmitted.  How  is  a  succession  of  the  "  seed" 
preserved  ?  The  definitiongiven  of  the  visible  church, 
indicates  that  this  is  done  in  two  ways :  1st,  By  a 
credible  profession  of  the  true  religion  ;  2d,  By  heredi- 
itary  descent.     Of  these  in  their  order. 

1st.  Under  all  the  dispensations  of  the  church,  the 
individual  who  was  without  the  bounds  of  the  covenant 
previous  to  his  being  of  adult  age,  was  to  be  admitted 
on  his  personal  faith  in  that  religion  which  the  cove- 
nant was  intended  to  secure.  [Mason,  No.  III.  p.  47.) 
Till  then  he  was  to  be  considered  an  "alien,"  "for- 
eigner," "stranger."  Upon  this  point  there  is  a  gen- 
eral agreement.  But  as  to  what  is  implied  in  this  per- 
sonal faith  there  is  no  small  diversity  of  views. 


Method  of  Perpetuating  the  Church  Visible.    35 

(1),  Some  contend  (as  for  example  John  Locke,  in 
his  Reasoimhleiiess  of  Christianity),  "that  all  that  is 
necessary  is  a  general  profession  of  the  truth;  under 
the  gospel  a  general  profession  of  belief  that  Jesus  is 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God."  But  this  is  the  sum  of 
the  gospel;  and  an  intelligent  reception  of  this  proposi- 
tion as  the  object  of  faith  involves  a  reception  of  the 
whole  testimony  of  God.  See  1  Cor.  xii.  3,  in  which 
passage  it  would  be,  in  the  last  degree,  absurd  to  say 
that  the  meaning  is,  "  no  man  can  pronounce  the  words, 
Jesus  is  the  Lord,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  See  also, 
1  John  V.  1,  5.  And  if  this  could  not  be  the  meaning  then, 
when  Christianity  was  a  new  thing  among  the  heathen, 
much  less  would  it  do  now,  when  Christianity  is  learned 
by  rote  by  millions  of  children. 

(2),  Others  think  that  a  fuller  profession  of  faith  in 
the  doctrine  of  revelation  should  be  required,  without 
solicitude  as  to  the  question  whether  these  doctrines 
have  been  felt  in  their  saving,  transforming  power. 
This  seems  to  be  the  principle  acted  upon  in  some 
branches  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  which  persons 
of  fair  moral  character,  who  can  answer  the  questions 
in  the  catechism,  are  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table — 
herein  differing  from  other  churches  (which  they  ac- 
cuse of  popery),  only  in  demanding  more  knowledge. 
It  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  this  view  to  say,  that  it  di- 
vorces truth  from  that  which  is  its  great  end,  godliness. 
Hence  we  find  in  such  churches  an  unusually  large 
proportion  of  orthodox  wicked  men,  or  at  least  of 
orthodox  men,  who  show  no  spirituality.  We  must 
never  forget  that  a  bad  life  is  a  bad,  if  not  "the  worst," 
heresy. 

(3),  Others  again  reverse  the  opinion  of  the  last,  and 
make  the  profession  to  be  one  of  "  experience,"  and 
not  at  all,  or  very  little  of  faith  in  the  doctrines  of 
God's  word.  I  have  myself  seen  persons  join  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  on  probation,  as  they  call 
it,   simply  by  giving  their  hand  to  the  minister,  and 


36  EcCLESiOLOGY. 

nothing  was  said  or  done  by  whicli  any  man  could  tell 
whether  the  neophytes  were  Christians  or  Mahomme- 
dans  as  to  their  faith.  The  presumption,  of  course,  was 
that  they  professed  faith  in  Christ,  but  it  was  only  a 
presumption.  All  which  is  absurd,  because  a  man 
cannot  be  a  Christian  without  some  knowledge  of 
Christ,  (See  John  vi.  45 ;  xvi.  7-15 ;  even  babes 
must  know  something.  Matt.  xi.  25-27) ;  for  he  cannot 
be  a  Christian  unless  he  has  been  taught  by  the  Spirit, 
who  witnesses  of  Christ.  The  church  is  the  great  wit- 
ness bearer  the  pillar  and  ground,  or  buttress,  of  the 
truth,  and  knowledge  is  indispensable.  A  profession 
of  faith  must  include  the  following  things.  (See  Mason, 
p.  53.)  («),  Acquaintance  with,  at  least,  the  leading 
doctrines  of  revelation,  (h),  Some  evidence  of  the 
saving  power  of  these  doctrines  upon  the  heart,  {c), 
An  open,  unequivocal  avowal  of  the  Kedeemer's  name  ; 
and  (d),  vigilance  in  the  discharge  of  religious  and 
moral  duty.  {Mason,  p.  53.)  And  all  these  particu- 
lars are  implied  in  an  adult  being  baptized  into  the 
name  of  the  Fatlier,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Further,  it  must  be  noted  that  the  profession  of  faith 
upon  which  a  person  is  admitted  to  church  privileges, 
is  a  credible  profession.  The  visible  church,  because 
it  is  visible,  and  its  affairs  administered  by  men, 
through  visible  ordinances,  can  insist  upon  nothing 
more  thau  a  profession  which  seems  to  be  true  and  sin- 
cere. It  is  God's  prerogative  to  judge  the  heart.  And 
even  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  knew  what  was  in 
man,  and  knew  that  Judas  Iscariot  was  a  devil  from 
the  beginning,  admitted  him  not  only  to  the  fellowship 
of  the  church,  but  even  to  the  office  of  an  apostle,  be- 
cause he  would  have  l)een  adjudged  to  be  qualified  for 
church  membership  and  office  by  the  measures  of 
human  judgment.  The  doctrine,  therefore,  of  Mon- 
tanism,  Donatism,  Anabaptism,  etc.,  in  regard  to  a 
church  which  shall  consist  only  of  the  regenerate,  is  a 
dream.     It  is  false,  both  in  law  and  fact ;  the  principle 


Method  of  PERPETUATlNa  the  Church  Visible.    37 

upon  which  the  judgment  of  the  church  is  founded  in 
this  case,  is  the  principle  upon  which  every  association 
of  men  must  proceed  in  judging  of  the  quahfication  of 
its  members.  The  judgment  must  be  founded  upon 
what  appem^s,  not  upon  what  is.  A  profession  of  faith 
in  Christ,  then,  which  is  not  discredited  by  other  traits 
of  character,  entitles  an  adult  to  the  privileges  of  his 
church.  This  is  the  first  way  of  securing  a  succession 
of  the  covenanted  seed,  and  of  handing  down  these 
blessings  to  the  end  of  time.     {31ason,  as  above.) 

2d.  The  other  and  the  principal  channel  of  trans- 
mission is  that  of  hereditary  descent.  The  relations  and 
benefits  of  -the  covenant  are  the  birthright  of  every 
child  born  of  parents  who  are  themselves  of  the  seed — 
"  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and 
thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations,  for  an  ever- 
lasting covenant."  This  is  a  characteristic  of  every  pub- 
lic covenant  which  God  has  made  with  man.  Take  for 
example  the  covenant  with  Adam  and  with  Noah.  Every 
human  creature  comes  into  being  imder  the  full  oper- 
ation of  both  these  covenants.  In  virtue  of  the  one  he  is 
an  "  heir  of  wrath,"  and  in  virtue  of  the  other,  an  heir 
of  promise  to  the  whole  extent  of  the  covenanted 
mercy.  He  has  the  faithfulness  of  God  pledged  to 
him,  as  one  of  Noah's  covenanted  seed,  that  the  world 
shall  not  be  drowned  by  a  second  deluge,  nor  visited 
by  another  calamity  to  exterminate  his  race.  Now  no 
imaginable  reason  can  be  assigned  why,  in  the  cove- 
nant with  his  visible  church;  the  uniform  and  consis- 
tent God  should  depart  from  his  known  rule  of  dispen- 
sation, and  violate  all  the  natural  and  moral  analogies 
of  his  works  and  his  government.  It  cannot  be. 
There  is  no  such  violation ;  there  is  no  such  departure. 
{Mason  p.  58,  and  read  on  to  the  end  of  the  chapter.)  • 


38  ECCLESIOLOGY. 


IX. 

The  Initiating  Seal. 

We  have  seen  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  had 
such  a  seal;  that  it  was  the  "  seal  of  the  righteousness 
of  faith" ;  that  it  certified  that  the  Hebrew,  to  whom 
it  was  applied  when  he  was  eight  days  old,  belonged 
to  the  church  of  God,  and  w^as  entitled  to  all  the  privi- 
leges which  it  derived  from  that  covenant.  And  fur- 
ther, that  the  right  to  this  seal  belonged  not  only  to 
the  literal,  but  to  the  covenanted  seed,  as  is  clear  from 
the  provision  made  for  the  circumcision  of  those  who 
were  "not"  of  the  literal  "seed"  of  Abraham.  (Gen. 
xvii.  12,  13.)  Now  this  covenant  is  still  in  force,  as 
has  been  proved ;  and  if  the  rite  of  circumcision  had 
not  been  abrogated,  it  w^ould  still  be  the  duty  of  pro- 
fessing parents  to  apply  it  to  their  male  offspring. 
But  circumcision  has  been  laid  aside.  Has  the  seal 
which  it  conveyed  been  abolished  also?  If  so,  then 
it  follows,  (1),  That  there  is  no  longer  any  initiatory 
seal  for  either  adults  or  infants,  for  an  abolished  seal 
is  abolished.  (2),  That  the  church  of  God  is  under 
the  operation  of  a  covenant  which  has  no  initiating 
seal.  If  it  be  said  that  baptism  is  such  a  seal,  then  it 
follows  that  baptism  has  come  in  the  place  of  circum- 
cision ;  and  if  so,  then  God  has  a  visible  church,  in 
sealed  covenant  with  himself,  distinct  from  that  church 
which  is  composed  of  the  elect  only ;  and  as  he  has  never 
made  a  new  visible  church,  nor  drawn  back  from  his 
old  engagements,  that  church  must  be  the  one  which 
was  organized  by  the  Abrahamic  covenant ;  and  then 
it  follows,  further,  that  the  application  of  circumcision 
must  furnish  the  rule  for  the  application  of  baptism, 
and  infants  are  to  be  baptized.     {3fason,  pp.  64,  65.) 

In  circumcision,  and  indeed  in .  any  ordinance,  we 
must  distinguish  between  the  substance  and  the  form. 
The  substance  of  the  ordinance,  that  which  properly 


The  Initiating  Seal.  39 

constituted  the  seal^  was  the  certification  to  the  per- 
son sealed  of  his  interest  in  God's  covenant.  The  rite 
of  circumcision  was  no  more  than  ^^  fonn  in  which 
the  seal  was  applied.  The  rite  may  be,  and  was,  and 
is  yet  performed  without  any  sealing  whatever.  The 
sons  of  Ishmael,  the  modern  Jews,  are  examples.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  certification  might  have  been  the 
same  and  the  rite  different — the  perforation  of  an  ear 
or  the  amputation  of  a  toe,  etc.  It  cannot  be  argued, 
therefore,  that  because  the  ancient  form  is  laid  aside, 
that  the  seal  and  all  that  it  certifies  have  been  laid 
aside  too.  It  would  be  quite  as  just  to  infer  that  be- 
cause the  form  of  church  polity  is  altered  the  church  no 
longer  exists.  If  it  be  said  that  the  rite  and  the  seal, 
though  distinguishable,  are  in  fact  inseparable,  and 
that  the  latter  cannot  be  applied  except  through  the 
medium  of  the  former,  the  answer  is,  that  the  objection 
concludes  equally  against  the  existence  of  a  church  on^ 
earth.  In  truth,  it  is  a  fundamental  principle  that 
forms  of  dispensation  do  not  affect  the  substance  of  the 
things  dispensed.  The  covenant  of  grace  has  been 
dispensed  under  five  forms,*  the  Abrahamic  covenant 
under  tliree^  and  yet  neither  has  been  abolished. 
Therefore,  the  change  in  the  form  of  the  seal  does  not 
abolish  it.  But  as  circumcision  has  been  abolished, 
and  no  one  pretends  that  any  other  rite  has  taken. its 
place  than  baptism,  either  baptism  is  that  seal,  or 
there  is  no  initiating  seal  at  all  under  the  gospel.  If 
there  is  no  seal,  then  the  privileges  of  believers  are 
abridged,  instead  of  enlarged,  under  the  gospel,  and  in 
this  respect  the  •  gospel  covenant  is  not  what  the 
apostle  affirms  it  to  be — "  a  better  covenant  founded 

*1,  Adam  to  Noali;  2,  Noali  to  Abraham;  3,  Abraham  to  Moses;  4, 
Moses  to  Christ ;  5,  Christ  to  the  end.  But  as  No.  2  is  essentially  the 
same  as  No.  1  (the  Noachian  covenant  or  covenant  of  "forbearance," 
embracing  so  far  as  it  was  singular,  the  whole  human  race,  and  there- 
fore woi  "the  covenant  of  grace, "),  there  have  been  only /ywr  forms 
of  the  "covenant  of  grace."  1,  Catholic;  2  and  3,  Particularistic;  4, 
Catholic. 


40  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

upon  better  promises."     Baptism,  then,  is  the  substi- 
tute  for   circumcision. 

This  may  be  argued  further,  (a),  From  the  coinci- 
dence in  the  purpose  and  meaning  of  the  two  ordi- 
nances. They  both  put  a  mark  upon  their  subjects  as 
belonging  to  that  society  which  God  hath  set  apart  for 
himself.  Both  signify  and  seal  that  wondrous  change 
in  the  state  of  the  sinner  whereby,  being  justified  by 
faith,  he  passes  from  condemnation  into  acceptance 
with  God  (Eom.  iv.  11 ;  vi.  3,  etc. ;  Acts  ii.  38 ;  Col.  ii. 
11-14),  wdiich  doctrines  of  pardon  and  acceptance  are 
exhibited  in  that  society  alone  which,  under  the  name 
of  his  church,  God  hath  consecrated  to  himself,  and  of 
which  he  hath  appointed  the  circumcised  and  the  bap- 
tized to  be  esteemed  members.  Both  represent  and 
are  means  of  obtaining  that  real  purity  which  is  effected 
by  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  and  is  the  characteristic  of  all 
those  members  of  his  church  who  are  justified  by  faith 
in  his  blood.  (Deut.  x.  16  ;  xxx.  6  ;  Acts  vii.  51 ;  Kom. 
vi.  4;  Col.  ii.  11-14.)  They  answer,  then,  the  same 
ends ;  baptism  being  better  suited  to  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation as  being  capable  of  more  extensive  applica- 
tion, (h),  From  the  scriptural  manner  of  representing 
circumcision  and  baptism  where  they  are  spoken  of 
together^  or  where  baptism  is  mentioned  in  connection 
with  the  covenant  of  wdiich  circumcision  was  the  seal. 
For  one  example  see  Acts  ii.  38,  39.  For  another  take 
the  passage  in  Col.  ii.  11-14,  above  cited.  In  which 
note,  (1),  That  both  baptism  and  circumcision  are 
represented  -as  signs  of  spiritual  mercies.  It  is  for 
this  reason  alone  that  they  are  or  can  be  used  as  terms 
to  convey  the  idea  of  such  mercies.  (2),  Circumcision 
was  a  sign  of  regeneration  and  of  communion  with 
Christ  as  the  fountain  of  spiritual  life.  The  apostle  is 
treating  of  a  believer's  completeness  in  Christ.  And 
in  order  to  show  that  he  means  the  inicard  gi^tve,  he 
calls  it  the  circmrtcision  made  'without  hands,  and  to 
make  all  mistake  impossible,  explains  his  explanation 


The  Initiating  Seal.  41 

by  adding  the  "  putting  off  the  sins  of  the  flesh  hy  the 
circumcision  of  Christy  (3),  Baptism,  too,  is  a  sign  of 
regeneration  and  of  communion  with  Christ  as  the 
fountain  of  spiritual  hfe.  In  baptism,  Paul  says  the 
believer  is  buried  with  Christ,  and  risen  with  him 
through  a  divine  faith.  The  "  uncircumcision  of  the 
flesh"  is  a  state  of  unregeneracy.  Here,  then,  again, 
circumcision  and  baptism  are  employed  by  turns  to 
denote  the  same  thing — a  believer's  sanctification  by 
union  with  Christ.  He  identifies  the  two  ordinances 
as  the  same  seal  under  different  forms.  But  the  two 
forms  cannot  exist  at  the  same  time,  and  circumcision 
has  passed  away.  Therefore,  baptism  remains  as  the 
"circumcision  of  Christ,"  or  Christian  circumcision, 
and  is  expressly  so  called  by  Paul,  as  will  be  seen  by 
comparing  the  last  clause  of  verse  11  with  the  first  of 
verse  12.  Compare  Rom.  iv.  11,  12,  where  Abraham 
is  called  not  only  the  "father  of  all  them  that  believe," 
but  the  ''father  of  circumcision"  to  them,  i.  e.,  he  com- 
municates the  sign  and  seal  as  well  as  the  thing  signi- 
fied. Now,  if  it  had  been  said  that  he  was  the  "father 
of  circumcision"  to  the  circumcision  only,  it  would 
mean  that  the  form  of  the  seal,  as  well  as  the  seal  itself, 
had  been  handed  down  by  Abraham  to  his  descendants 
with  the  things  signified.  But  he  is  represented,  also, 
as  the  father  of  circumcision  to  the  uncircumcised ;  to 
those  who  walk  in  the  steps  of  the  faith  which  he  had 
while  yet  uncircumcised;  i.  e.,  these  last  receive  the 
seal  as  well  as  the  covenant.  But  circumcision  has 
been  abolished.  How,  then,  is  Abraham  the  "  father  of 
circumcision"  to  the  uncircumcised?  Through  bap- 
tism, which  has  come  in  the  place  of  circumcision 
{Mason),  and  as  there  is  no  distinction  between  the 
mode  in  which  Abraham  has  handed  down  the  sealed 
privileges  of  God's  covenant  to  those  who  were  and 
those  who  w^ere  not  of  the  circumcision ;  and  as  they 
were  made  over  to  the  former  and  their  infant  seed, 
they  must  also  be  made  over  to  the  latter  and  their  in- 


42  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

fant  seed.  If  it  should  be  said  that  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants implies  the  application  of  the  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness of  faith  to  multitudes  who  never  had  and  never 
will  have  that  righteousness,  and  consequently  that  the 
seal  of  God's  covenant  is  often  affixed  to  a  lie,  the 
answer  is  that  the  same  difficulty  lies  against  circum- 
cision of  infants  not  only,  but  against  the  adminis- 
tration of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  to  adults, 
unless  we  can  be  assured  that  all  the  recipients  are 
true  converts.  But  'the  difficulty  is  created  by  false 
notions  of  the  church,  and  confounding  the  covenant 
of  grace  with  the  ecclesiological  covenant.  The  seal 
of  God's  covenant  does,  in  every  instance,  certify  abso- 
lute truth,  whether  it  be  applied  to  a  believer  or  an 
unbeliever,  to  the  elect  or  to  the  reprobate.  [Mason, 
p.  83.) 

X. 

Infant  Members. 

According  to  the  definition  of  the  visible  church  in 
our  Confession  of  Faith,  the  children  of  those  who  pro- 
fess the  true  religion  are  members  of  it  as  well  as  their 
parents.  This  has  been  already  proved,  {a),  From  the 
fact  that  the  Abraliamic  covenant,  which  included  the 
seed,  was  an  ecclesiological  covenant,  and  has  never 
been  abrogated ;  and  consequently  that  the  Christian 
church,  which  is  founded  on  the  Abraliamic  covenant, 
must  include  the  infant  seed  of  believers.  (^),  From 
the  fact  that  all  the  public  covenants  made  with  men 
before  Christ — Adam's,  Noah's,  the  Mosaic — recog- 
nized the  unity  of  the  family  and  the  identity  of  the 
federal  status  of  parents  and  children,  (c),  From  the 
fact  that  baptism  has  come  in  the  place  of  circum- 
cision. {(]),  From  the  recognition  of  the  same  princi- 
ple in  the  whole  course  of  God's  providential  govern- 
ment. When  we  are  asked,  therefore,  for  a  "Thus 
saith  the    Lord"  for   infant  baptism  under  the  New 


Infant  Members.  43 

Testament,  we  answer,  where  lias  God,  in  the  New 
Testament,  taken  away  from  his  people  a  privilege 
which  they  had  always  enjoyed?  The  burden  of  proof 
lies  on  them  who  deny,  not  on  those  who  affirm.  But 
we  proceed  to  some  considerations  which  tend  to  con- 
firm the  right  of  the  infants  of  professors  to  church 
privileges  under  the  gospel. 

1st.  If  they  have  no  such  right,  then  God  has  not 
only  departed  from  the  analogies  of  former  federal  con- 
stitutions, and  from  the  general  analogies  of  his  provi- 
dence, but  has  done  so  to  abridge  the  privileges  of 
his  people  under  the  new  and  better  covenant.  And 
when  we  consider  that  the  children  of  believing  parents 
share  in  all  the  disaster's  of  the  visible  church,  its  cor- 
ruptions, its  persecutions,  its  declensions,  the  suppo- 
sition becomes  monstrous  that  they  are  excluded  from 
its  privileges.  It  represents  God  not  only  as  discrim- 
inating against  his  people  by  debarring  them  from  a 
privilege,  but  as  retaining  the  principle  only  for  the 
infliction  of  calamity.     (Mason,  p.  93.) 

2d.  If  there  be  no  infant  membership  under  the 
gospel,  then  the  church  has  no  authority  over  the  chil- 
dren of  believers,  but  they  are  to  her  as  Turks  or 
Pagans.  She  has  no  authority  to  instruct  or  admonish 
them,  any  more  than  the  children  of  Pagans.  If  she 
had  acted  upon  this  principle  she  would  long  ago  have 
ceased  to  exist.  Baptists  themselves  do  not  act  upon 
it.  They  feel,  in  spite  of  their  own  doctrine,  that  the 
children  of  the  church  do  sustain  a  peculiar  relation  to 
it,  and  that  the  church  is  bound  in  a  special  manner  to 
look  after  their  instruction.  At  the  same  time,  it  must 
be  acknowledged  that  they  are  more  remiss  in  this  duty 
than  sects  which  formally  recognize  the  ecclesiastical 
status  of  the  children  of  the  church. 

3d.  If  there  be  no  infant  membership  in  the  Chris- 
tian church,  then  God  has  inflicted  upon  helieving  Jews 
the  very  curse  which  he  threatened  against  the  unbe- 
lieving, so  far  as  the  children  are  concerned.  (See  Acts 
4 


44  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

iii.  23.)  Who  are  the  "people"  in  this  passage?  Not 
the  nation  of  the  Jews ;  for  they  were  the  rebels  that 
were  to  joerish  "  from  among  the  people,"  a  people  who 
were  to  continue  in  the  divine  protection.  Not  the 
elect ;  for  God  never  "  cast  away  his  people  whom  he 
foreknew,"  and  they  who  committed  this  crime  never 
belonged  to  the  elect — were  never  "among"  them.  If 
neither  the  Jewish  nation  nor  the  elect,  it  could  be  no 
other  than  that  people  whom  he  owns  as  his,  and  who 
are  called  by  the  collective  name  of  his  church.  And 
the  passage  occurring  in  Moses  is  a  proof  of  the  unity 
and  perpetuity  of  the  visible  church.  What  is  meant 
by  "destruction"  here?  Not  temporal  death;  for 
that  penalty  was  never  ordained  for  the  sin  of  unbelief 
in  the  Messiah.  Not  an  exclusion  from  the  Jewish 
nation,  for  this  effect  did  not  take  place ;  and  further, 
if  it  had,  it  was  as  likely  to  prove  a  blessing  as  a  curse. 
It  must  mean  exclusion  from  the  communion  of  the 
visible  clinrch.  This  is  its  technical  sense  in  the  Old 
Testament.  Now  the  execution  of  this  threatening 
involved  the  casting  out  of  the  children  of  those  on 
whom  it  was  executed,  and  conversely  the  preservation 
in  the  church  of  the  children  of  those  who  believed. 
If  the  converse  does  not  hold  good,  then  the  children 
of  believers  were  cast  out,  and  then  the  threatening 
was  executed  upon  believers  as  well  as  upon  the  re- 
bellious. If  the  Jewish  Christians  had  understood  the 
apostles  in  this  way,  it  is  impossible  to  believe  that 
they  would  not  have  made  trouble  about  it.  As  to  the 
spirit  of  the  Jewish  Christians,  witness  the  commotions 
about  circumcision  as  recorded  in  the  Acts  and  con- 
stantly referred  to  in 'some  of  the  Epistles.  The  Juda- 
izing  teachers  made  circumcision  not  only  a  term  of 
communion,  but  of  salvation ;  and  if  their  doctrine  had 
prevailed,  circumcision  in  the  Christian  church  must 
have  been  regulated  by  the  Mosaic  law,  and  this  law 
prescribed  the  circumcision  of  infants.  The  only  pre- 
text upon  which   a  compliance  with   this  ordinance 


Infant  Membeks.  45 

according  to  the  law  of  Moses  was  binding  upon  the 
Gentile  converts,  was  that  the  children  of  these  con- 
verts were  members  of  the  Christian  church.  If  they 
were  not,  the  answer  would  have  been  easy.  Whatever 
may  be  the  duty  of  achdts,  there  is  no  reason  to  cir- 
cumcise infants,  because,  by  the  new  order  of  things, 
they  do  not  belong  to  the  Christian  community  and 
have  no  concern  with  its  "sealing  ordinances."  Yet 
no  such  exception  was  ever  taken.    (See  Acts,  xxi.  21.) 

4th.  If  there  be  no  infant  membership  in  the  Chris- 
tian church  it  is  hard  to  account  for  the  language  of 
God's  word  respecting  children.  (See  Isa.  Ixv.  23; 
Mark-x.  14;  Acts  ii.  39;  Eom.  xi.  23,  24,  et  al.) 

5th.  The  supposition  of  infant  membership  is  neces- 
sary to  give  any  plausible  interpretation  of  1  Cor.  vii. 
14.  "Holy"  here  cannot  mean  internal  purity,  for 
that  children  of  professing  parents  are  holy  in  this 
sense  is  contrary  to  reason,  to  scripture  and  to  fact. 
It  cannot  mean  "  legitimate,"  for  marriage  is  an  insti- 
tution existing  from  the  beginning,  and  altogether  inde- 
pendent of  Christianity.  It  must  mean  separated  and 
set  apart  to  the  service  of  God.  (Lev.  xx.  26.)  This 
is  evident  from  the  contrast  of  "  unclean  " — common. 
Compare  Acts  x.  14.  The  terms  "  holy  "  and  "  unclean  " 
or  "  common,"  were  precisely  the  terms  for  those  who 
were,  or  were  not,  respectively  within  the  external 
covenant  of  God,  and  were,  therefore,  precisely  the 
terms  to  express  the  relation  of  infants  to  the  church 
visible,  according  as  they  were  or  were  not  the  off- 
spring of  parents  who  were,  one  or  both,  members  of 
the  church  visible.  The  only  plausible  objection  to 
this  view  is,  that  if  the  terms  "  holy  "  and  "  unclean  " 
have  the  meaning  asserted  for  them,  then  the  word 
"sanctified"  must  have  the  same  extent  of  meaning; 
and  if  so,  the  unbelieving  partner  to  the  marriage  re- 
lation must  become  a  member  of  the  church  in  conse- 
quence of  the  church  membership  of  the  other  partner. 

Answer:    (1),   The    objection,  of  course,    takes   for 


46  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

granted  the  impossibility  of  marriage  producing  such 
a  change  in  ecclesiastical  relations  (which  we  also 
hold).  Then  it  follows  that  the  whole  statement  means 
nothing.  It  neither  means  "  holy,"  in  the  sense  of 
being  within  the  external  coA^enant,  nor  in  the  sense  of 
internal  spiritual  holiness,  nor  in  the  sense  of  legiti- 
macy, and  there  is  nothing  else  that  it  can  mean.  It 
is  a  holiness  which  is  neither  within  nor  without,  neither 
in  soul,  nor  spirit,  nor  body,  nor  condition,  nor  state, 
nor  anything  else. 

(2),  The  covenant  of  God  never  founded  the  privi- 
lege of  church  membership  upon  the  mere  fact  of  inter- 
marriage with  his  people  ;  but  it  did  found  it  expressly 
upon  the  fact  of  being  born  of  them. 

(3),  By  a  positive  statute  adults  were  not  to  be  ad- 
mitted into  the  church  without  a  profession  of  their 
faith.  Hence,  the  doctrine  of  Paul  must  be  explained 
so  as  to  agree  with  the  restriction  of  this  statute.  Tlie 
believing  partner  does  "sanctify"  the  unbelieving; 
this  is  plainly  asserted,  but  not  so  far  as  to  make  the 
unbelieving  a  member  of  the  church ;  this  would  con- 
travene the  statute  above  named. 

(4),  The  very  words  teach  that  this  sanctification  re- 
gards the  unbelieving  parent,  not  for  his  own  sake,  but 
as  a  medium,  affecting  the  transmission  of  covenant 
privileges  to  the  children  of  a  believer.  The  question 
was,  whether,  in  the  case  of  one  of  the  parties  in  the 
marriage-relation  being  a  Pagan,  and  the  other  a  Chris- 
tian, the  former  or  the  latter  should  determine  the  re- 
lation of  the  offspring  to  the  church,  or  whether  neither 
should.  The  answer  is,  that  in  this  case,  where  the 
argument  for  the  children  seems  to  be  perfectly  bal- 
anced by  the  argument  against  them,  God  has  gra- 
ciously inclined  the  scale  in  favor  of  his  people ;  so 
that,  for  the  purpose  of  conveying  to  their  infants  the 
privilege  of  being  within  his  covenant  and  church,  the 
unbelieving  partner  is  sanctified  by  the  believing.  It 
must  be  thus  or  the  reverse. 


The  Notes  or  Marks  of  a  True  Church.        47 

This  passage  decides  the  same  point  in  another  way. 
It  assumes  the  principle,  that  where  hotli  parents  are 
reputed  believers,  their  children  belong  to  the  church 
as  a  matter  of  course.  {Mason,  pp.  109-118.)  So 
that  the  origin,  as  well  as  the  solution  of  the  difficulty, 
establishes  the  doctrine,  that  by  the  appointment  of 
God  the  infants  of  believing  parents  are  born  members 
of  his  church.  See  Hodge's  Coriim.  in  l<>c.  (1  Cor. 
vii.  14.) 


XI. 

The  Notes  or  Marks  of  a  True  Church.  * 

1.  The  occasion  and  importance  of  the  question. 

2.  What  is  a  7«arX? ?  How  many  kinds  of  marks? 
'^\iQ>i prohahle,  and  what  necessary  or  essential  marks? 
About  which  kind  is  this  question  ? 

3.  What  essential  to  constitute  a  mark  ?  What  meant 
by  its  he\n^  proper  f     By  its  being  conspicuous  f 

4.  The  state  of  the  question — not  about  the  marks 
by  which  a  man  may  be  probably  concluded  to  be  one 
of  the  elect,  or  of  the  church  invisible,  nor  about  the 
church  visible,  generally  considered,  as  contradistin- 
guished from  heathenism,  but  about  a  particular 
church;  how  the  true  and  orthodox  may  be  discrimi- 
nated from  false  and  heretical  churches ;  how  a  church 
in  which  we  can  be  saved  is  discriminated  from  one  in 
which  we  cannot. 

5.  These  marks  may  be  more  or  less  fully  stated. 
The  word  only,  or  the  word  with  the  addition  of  sac- 
raments, discipline,  holy  life,  etc.  But  they  all  may 
be  referred  to  the  word. 


*Nota  in  Latin  ;  Y'''tofn(T;j.a  in  Greek.  The  Greeks  (Aristotle)  made 
the  p-  of  two  sorts  —the  jyrdbahle  {er/.oza)  and  the  certain  {rey./irjpia). 
The  question  here  is  about  the  latter  sort— about  properties,  not  about 
accidents.     See  Turretin,  L.  18.  Q.  12.  Art.  2. 


48  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

The  voice  of  God  is  the  word ;  the  faith  of  men  is 
about  the  word  ;  their  life  and  obedience  is  the  fruit  of 
the  word  ;  the  order  of  the  church  is  from  the  word ; 
the  sacraments  are  the  seals  and  appendices  of  the 
word,  or  a  visible  word.  The  word  is  i^exillimi,  scep- 
truin,  hix,  norma,  et  statera. 

6.  A  church  may  possess  these  marks  more  or  less 
perfectly,  but  all  must  possess  the  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  the  gospel.  Distinction  between  essentials 
and  non-essentials.  These  doctrines  must  not  be 
judged  by  the  private  opinions  of  doctors,  but  by  the 
formularies  of  the  body;  and  the  word  must  be  so 
preached,  and  the  sacraments  so  administered,  that  the 
tendency  of  the  whole  shall  be  to  gather  in  and  more 
or  less  completely  build  up  the  elect  of  God. 

7.  Proofs  that  the  icord  is  a  mark  of  a  true  church : 
(1),  From  Scripture:  John  x.  27.     The  sheep  hear 

Christ's  voice;  and  those  who  make  a  credible  pro- 
fession of  hearing  it  are  to  be  judged  in  charity  to  be 
his.  John  viii.  81,  32.  "  If  ye  abide  in  my  words  then 
are  ye  my  disciples  indeed,"  c^-c. — xiv.  23.  Wherever 
Christ  dwells  with  the  Father,  there  is  his  house  and 
temple,  but  he  dwells  with  those  who  keep  his  word. 
Ergo,  Matthew  xviii.  20 ;  Acts  ii.  42.  Further,  as  the 
science  of  contraries  is  one,  the  mark  by  which  the 
false  is  discriminated  from  the  true  is  a  mark  by  which 
the  true  may  be  discriminated  from  the  false.  But 
this  is  by  the  doctrine  they  teach.  Isa.  viii.  20 ;  Deut. 
xiii.  12.  Illustrate  here  the  distinction  of  essentials 
and  non-essentials.  The  criterion  of  old  was  the  doc- 
trine of  God's  unity,  (Deut.  xiii.) ;  under  the  gospel 
the  doctrine  concerning  Christ.  1  John  iv.  11,  <fec.  The 
sin  of  false  teachers  in  both  cases  is  idolatry,  for  God 
in  Christ  is  the  God  of  the  New  Testament.  See  also 
Gal.  i.  8,  1  Tim.  iii.  15,  Eph.  ii.  19,  20,  and  thus  even 
to  the  end,  Eph.  iv.  11,  12,  13.  Hence  the  removal  of 
the  candlestick  is  the  removal  of  the  church.  Rev. 
ii.  5. 


The  Notes  or  Marks  of  a  True  Church.        49 

(2),  From  the  Fathers :  Tertulhan,  Chrysostom,  Je- 
rome, Ambrose,  Augustme,  and  even  Vincent  of  Lirens, 
Bellarmine,  and  other  Roman  Catholic  writers ;  nay, 
"  the  Catholic  doctrine  "  itself  is  fonnded  upon  it.  See 
Turretin,  iii.  pp.  78,  ff. 

8.  But  it  is  objected — 

1.  To  make  the  Word  the  mark  of  the  church,  is  to 
make  the  less  conspicuous  the  mark  of  the  more.  An- 
swer. The  difficulty  only  exists  under  the  Roman 
Catholic  view  of  the  relation  of  the  two,  the  relation 
of  the  church  and  Scriptures. 

2.  Doctrine  cannot  be  the  mark  of  the  church,  be- 
cause doctrine  is  either  controverted  or  not.  Uncon- 
troverted  doctrine  cannot  be,  because  all  agree  upon 
it.  It  can  be,  therefore,  no  mark  of  distinction,  rather 
is  it  a  mark  of  communion.  Controverted  doctrine 
cannot  be,  because  siih  jicdice  lis  est,  and  the  decision 
can  only  be  made  by  the  church,  which  must  therefore, 
have  been  determined  to  be  a  church  previously,  and 
upon  independent  grounds.  Answer:  This,  again,  is 
a  difficulty  mainly  on  the  Popish  view — denial  of  right 
of  private  judgment;  for  then,  what  is  controverted 
may  be  determined  by  what  is  agreed.  The  affirma- 
tive articles  may  be  the  rule  by  which  we  may  decide 
the  negative,  as  the  rectiun.  est  index  sui  et  ohliqui. 
Illustrate  this  by  the  fact  of  the  apostles  citing  the  Old 
Testament  (and  see  Acts  xvii.  11).  The  Papists  re- 
ceive the  same  Scriptures  that  we  do,  and  as  truth  is 
one,  they  are  bound  to  show  that  what  they  hold  be- 
side the  teaching  of  Scripture  is  in  harmony  with 
Scripture.  Particularly  illustrated  by  the  doctrine  of 
a  mediator,  sacrifice  and  intercession.  Again  :  Answer 
by  the  argument  ad  hoiainem.  The  notes  which  the 
Papists  lay  down  are  controverted.     Ergo,  no  notes. 

3.  The  judgment  of  man  is  fallible.  If,  then,  human 
reason  judges  what  is  true  doctrine,  it  errs.  Answer: 
(<2),  That  fallible  reason  does  not  always  err  in  fact; 
if  otherwise,  we  should  never  know  anything.  (^),  Even 


50  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

if  we  accept  the  decision  of  an  infallible  clinrcli,  we  ac- 
cept it  with  a  fallible  reason ;  therefore  we  err.  Why 
should  the  infallible  statements  of  Scripture  become 
fallible  when  passing  into  the  fallible  medium  of  the 
human  mind,  any  more  than  the  statements  of  an  in- 
fallible church,  especially  considering  that  Scriptures 
are  so  much  plainer  than  the  bulls  of  Popes  ? 

4.  The  common  people  cannot  understand  Scripture, 
and  therefore  cannot  know  whether  a  church  has  the 
true  mark  or  not.  Answer:  (a),  They  can  understand 
Scripture  as  easily  as  the  decrees  of  the  church,  (h), 
The  contents  of  Scripture  are  two-fold,  natural  and 
supernatural.  In  regard  to  this  last,  all  men  stand  on 
the  same  level:  none  can  understand  without  the 
Spirit ;  with  the  Spirit,  all  can.  And  the  doctrine  which 
constitutes  the  notes  of  a  church  belong  to  this  class — 
the  doctrine  of  salvation.  At  any  rate,  the  common 
people  are  better  judges  of  those  notes  than  of  those 
which  the  papists  lay  down. 

5.  Making  the  Word  a  note  is  making  the  for/n  a 
note ;  but  the  forms  of  things  are  recondite,  whereas  a 
note  must  be  conspicuous.  Answer:  This  is  true  of 
sensihle  objects,  but  not  of  intellectual,  in  which  last, 
forms  are  the  most  conspicuous,  and  the  form  is  the 
best  note,  because  ^' dat  esse  ret'' 

6.  But  if  the  form  is  the  being  of  the  thing,  then  to 
make  the  form  a  note  is  to  explain  the  thing  by  the 
thing  itself,  idem  per  idem.  Answer:  This  is  done 
in  every  definition,  a  definition  being  only  the  state- 
ment of  the  genus  and  the  specific  difference,  which 
together  constitute  the  formal  nature  of  a  thing. 

7.  Every  man  knows  the  church  before  he  knows 
the  Scriptures ;  i.  e.,  the  thing  before  the  note.  Answer  : 
It  is  not  true  that  he  knows  the  church,  as  a  true 
church,  before  he  knows  the  Scriptures ;  and  this  is  the 
knowledge  in  question.  See  Turretin,  L.  18,  q.  12,  vol. 
iii.  (Carter's  ed.),  p.  74,  ff. 


Apostolical  Succession.  51 

The  Pretended  Notes  of  Kome. 

[See  Turretin,  L,  i8,  q.  13.] 

Among  the  notes  of  the  church  mentioned  by  Bel- 
larmine  and  discussed  by  Turretin,  the  chief  is  that  of 
"  succession,"  or  as  it  is  commonly  termed,  "  apostolic 
succession."  A  full  refutation  of  the  Papal  doctrine 
on  this  subject  may  be  found  in  an  article  in  the 
Southern  Preshyterian  Bevievj  for  July,  1872.  The  fol- 
lowing is  that  article : 

Apostolical  Succession. 

All  branches  of  the  Christian  church  hold  to  an 
apostolical  succession  in  some  sense;  for  without 
it  there  is  no  ground  upon  which  they  can  claim,  with 
the  slightest  color  of  plausibility,  a  divine  sanction  for. 
their  existence.  Presbyterians,  for  example,  hold  that 
they  have  the  doctrine,  the  polity,  the  worship,  which 
were  taught  and  ordained  by  the  apostles.  They  hold 
that  the  succession  is  to  be  determined,  not  by  history 
or  tradition,  but  by  a  direct  appeal  to  writings  which 
are  not  only  more  ancient  than  the  writings  of  the 
Fathers^  but  have,  according  to  the  confessions  of 
these  Fathers  themselves,  a  divine  authority — the 
writings  of  the  apostles.  The  body  which  now  holds 
the  doctrine  of  justification  without  the  works  of  the 
law,  'w>^  pro  tanto,  a  truer  successor  of  the  church  to 
which  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  was  addressed,  than 
the  church  now  at  Rome  which  denies  that  doctrine 
and  curses  all  who  hold  it.^  The  body  which  is  now 
governed  by  a  presbytery  is  a  truer  successor  of  the 
church  of  Ephesus,  which  was  also  governed  by  a  pres- 
bytery in  the  days  of  Paul,  than  a  church  of  the  present 
day  which  is  governed  by  a  prelate,  an  ofiicer  of  which 

^  3ee  QerJiard,  Loc.  Theolog.  Loc.  23,  Chap.  11,  §  5,  §  cxc. 


52  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

the  apostolic  records  know  nothing.  All  this  is  true, 
whatever  the  intervening  history  may  he.^ 

We  need  not  say  that  this  is  not  the  sense  in  which 
the  term  is  nsed  in  this  article.  It  is  of  the  apostol- 
ical succession  as  held  by  the  papists  and  their  "  apists  " 
that  we  propose  to  treat,  and  especially  of  the  doctrine 
as  held  by  the  papists,  which  alone  can  claim  the 
merit  of  being  intelligible  or  consistent.  The  doctrine 
as  held  by  their  imitators,  as  we  may  take  occasion  to 
show,  is  mere  moonshine,  having  no  meaning,  because 
separated  from  the  system  of  doctrine  and  worship  of 
which  it  forms  a  part,  and  because  destitute,  upon  its 
own  principles,  of  any  true  historical  basis. 

The  fundamental  principle  of  the  apostolical  succes- 
sion is  thus  stated  by  the  Council  of  Trent :  "  Sacrifice 
and  priesthood  have  been  so  joined  together  by  the 
ordination  of  God,  that  both  have  existed  under  every 
dispensation.  Since,  therefore,  the  Catholic  Church, 
under  the  New  Testament,  has  received,  by  institution 
of  the  Lord,  the  holy,  visible  sacrifice  of  the  Eucharist, 
it  ought  also  to  be  confessed  that  there  is  in  it  a  new, 
visible  and  external  priesthood.  Further,  that  this 
priesthood  was  instituted  by  the  same  Lord  our 
Saviour,  and  that  to  the  apostles  and  their  successors 
in  the  priesthood  he  gave  the  power  of  consecrating, 
offering  and  administering  his  body  and  blood,  as  also 
of  remitting  and  retaining  sins,  Holy  Writ  shows,  and 
the  tradition  of  the  Catholic  Church  has  always 
taught."  t 

*  There  is  still  another  sense  in  which  the  term  may  be  used.  There 
has  been  such  an  order  of  men  as  Christian  ministers,  continuously 
from  the  time  of  the  apostles  to  this  day.  This  is  a  very  different 
thing  from  the  "  apostolic  succession "  in  the  mouths  of  papists  and 
prelatists,  which  is  the  succession,  in  an  unbroken  line,  of  this  or  that 
individual  minister.  "How  ridiculous  it  would  be  thought,"  says 
Archbishop  Whately  {Kingdom  of  Christ,  Essay  II.,  §  30),  "if  a  man 
laying  claim  to  the  throne  of  some  country  should  attempt  to  establish 
it  without  producing  and  proving  his  own  pedigree,  merely  by  showing 
that  that  country  had  always  been  under  hereditary  regal  government!" 

t  Concil.  Trident.  Canones  et  Decreta.   Sess.  23,  Chap.  1. 


Apostolical  Succession.  53 

Note,  then,  carefully,  that  among  the  papists,  apos- 
tolical succession  means  a  succession  of  prusts"^  in 
the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  sacei' dotes ^  ts(/e7(;,  officers 
whose  business  it  is  to  offer  true  and  proper  expiatory 
and  propitiatory  sacrifices.  That  this  is  the  meaning 
of  the  Council  is  not  left  to  inference  or  conjecture. 
It  says  that  there  has  been  a  priesthood  under  every 
dispensation  of  religion;  it  argues  that  the  eucharist 
is  a  sacrifice,  and  therefore  there  must  be  a  priesthood 
to  offer  it ;  in  the  canon  corresponding  with  this  de- 
cree, it  curses  all  who  say  that  the  priesthood  is  "  only 
an  office  and  a  naked  ministry  for  preaching  the 
gospel,"  and  not  a  visible  and  external  saceirlotkcm; 
it  derives  this  priesthood  from  Christ,  as  the  Levitical 
priesthood  was  derived  from  Aaron ;  that  is,  from 
Christ,  not  as  the  founder  of  the  Christian  Institute, 
but  as  the  first  in  order  of  priests  under  the  new  law, 
as  Aaron  was  the  first  in  the  order  of  priests  under  the 
old ;  and,  in  proof  of  this,  referring  to  Heb.  v.  4,  5,  it 
makes  the  apostles  Christ's  immediate  successors  as 
priests,  and  the  priests  of  Rome  the  successors  of  the 
apostles  as  priests. 

The  difference  between  their  priests  and  the  minis- 
ters of  the  gospel,  is  much  Avider  than  between  the 
priests  of  the  family  of  Aaron  and  the  ordinary  Levites 
who  were  not  of  that  family.  It  cannot  be  too  care- 
fully borne  in  mind,  that  the  question  of  apostolical 
succession  is  a  question  about  the  succession  oi  j^^^^^i^^ 
not  at  all  of  ministers  of  the  vjord. 

Note,  in  the  second  place,  that  the  apostolical  suc- 
cession involves  a  peculiar  view  of  the  sacraments. 
The  priests  are  not  ministers  of  the  word,  and,  of 
course,  a  sacrament  is  not  a  verhum  visihile,  as  Augus- 
tine calls  it ;  not  a  sign  of  truths  conveyed  by  the  word, 
and  differing  from  the  word  (so  far  as  it  is  a  sign)  only 
in  the  kind  of  language  employed  as  a  vehicle.     If  this 

*  The  English  word  priest  is  simply  "presbyter  writ  short." 


54  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

view  were  allowed,  the  priests  of  the  new  law  would  be 
no  better  than  those  of  the  old.  Their  sacrifices  would 
be  only  symbols  and  actually  convey  no  grace.  So 
low  a  view  of  her  priesthood  Rome  cannot  tolerate. 
"The  power  with  which  the  Christian  priesthood  is 
clothed,"  says  the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent, 
"is  a  heavenly  power,  raised  above  that  of  angels;  it 
has  its  source,  not  in  the  Levitical  priesthood,  but  in 
Christ  the  Lord,  who  was  a  priest,  not  according  to 
Aaron,  but  according  to  the  order  of  Melchisedec." 
So  again  the  same  Catechism:  "Priests  and  bishops 
are,  as  it  were,  the  interpreters  and  heralds  (inter- 
nuncii)  of  God,  commissioned  in  his  name  to  teach 
mankind  the  law  of  God  and  the  precepts  of  a  Chris- 
tian life;  they  are  the  representatives  of  God  upon 
earth.  It  is  impossible,  therefore,  to  conceive  a  more 
exalted  dignity,  or  functions  more  sacred.  Justly, 
therefore,  are  they  called,  not  only  angels  (Mai.  ii.  7), 
but  gods  (Ps.  Ixxxii.  6),""  holding  as  they  do  the  place 
and  power  and  authority  of  God  on  earth.  But  the 
priesthoood,  at  all  times  an  elevated  office,  transcends 
in  the  new  law  all  others  in  dignity.  The  power  of 
consecrating  and  offering  the  body  and  blood  of  our 
Lord,  and  of  remitting  sins,  with  which  the  priesthood 
of  the  new  law  is  invested,  is  such  as  cannot  be  com- 
prehended by  the  human  mind,  still  less  is  it  equalled 
by,  or  assimilated  to,  anything  on  earth." 

*  Papists  are  not  good  iuterpreters.  This  passage  has  no  reference  at 
all  to  the  Levitical  priests.  It  is  "a  brief  and  pregnant  statement  of 
the  responsibilities  attached  to  the  judicial  office  under  the  Mosaic  dis- 
pensation. "  The  judges  are  frequently  called  ' '  gods  "  in  the  law.  (See 
Exod.  xxi.  6;  xxii.  8,  9,  in  the  Hebrew  ^^o^ m. )  Hence  vs.  6,  ''■  Iham 
said.  Ye  are  gods. "  Augustine  (Enarratio  in  p.  81)  regards  Israel  as  a 
whole  as  the  subject  of  the  Psalm,  and  vs.  6,  as  an  address  specially  to 
the  elect,  eos  qui  pnedestinati  sunt  in  vitam  oiternam.  The  authors  of 
the  Catechism  are  unfortunate  in  citing  a  passage  for  the  purpose  of 
glorifying  the  priesthood,  in  which  the  tone  throughout  is  one  of  severe 
rebuke,  and  in  which  these  "gods"  are  told  they  shall  "  die  like  men." 
Ou7'  priesthood  is  one  jvhich  knows  no  change  by  reason  of  death — one 
after  the  power  of  an  endless  life.  (See  7th  chapter  of  Hebrews,  pas- 
dm.) 


Apostolical  Succession.  55 

Every  priest  is  ordained  to  offer  gifts  and  sacrifices ; 
wherefoje  these  priests  mnst  have  somewhat  to  offer. 
The  preaching  of  the  word  will  not  do,  because  any- 
body who  knows  the  plan  of  salvation  may  tell  it  to 
his  fellow-sinners.  Singing,  praying,  and  alms-giving 
will  not  do,  for  a  similar  reason.  The  two  sacraments 
of  the  New  Testament  have  been  pitched  upon  because 
they  are  symbolical  ordinances;  and  the  meaning  of  a 
symbol  is  more  easily  perverted  than  the  meaning  of 
words.  The  ordinance  of  baptism  has  been  perverted, 
as  to  its  matter,  by  substituting  a  mixture  of  oil,  spit- 
tle, salt,  and  water,  for  the  element  of  water  (that  is,  an 
element  which  defiles  has  been  substituted  for  the  ele- 
ment that  cleanses);  it  has  been  perverted,  as  to  its 
form,  by  ascribing  a  significance  to  it  altogether  dif- 
ferent from  that  which  the  New  Testament  ascribes  to 
it ;  and  it  has  been  perverted,  as  to  its  design,  by  mak- 
ing it  a  physical  cause  of  grace  to  the  recipient  in 
every  case  in  which  no  obstruction  is  opposed  to  its 
operation.  It  is  not  the  baptism  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment at  all,  but  a  ceremony  totally  difiereut.  It  re- 
quires, therefore,  a  different  kind  of  administrator 
from  that  minister  of  the  word  whose  ofiice  it  is,  by 
the  appointment  of  Christ,  to  administer  Christian 
baptism. 

In  like  manner  they  have  perverted  the  ordinance 
of  the  supper.  It  is  no  longer  a  simple  memorial  of 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  which  was  offered  once  for  all, 
but  a  true  and  proper  offering  of  the  bod}^,  blood,  and 
divinity  of  Christ  continually  for  the  living  and  the 
dead.  The  matter,  form,  and  design  of  this  sacrament 
have  all  been  so  perverted,  that  its  identity  has  been 
lost.  "We  therefore  confess,"  says  the  Tridentine  Cat- 
echism,^^" "that  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  is  one  and  the 

*  See  the  Cat.  Trident,  ou  the  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist.  We  quote, 
for  the  most  part,  from  the  EngHsh  translation  made  by  Donovan,  Pro- 
fessor of  the  Koyal  College,   Mayuooth.     Bait.,    1833.     So  also  the 
Council  itself   (Sess.  22)  iu  its  Canons,  Canon  2.      "If  any  shall  say 
5 


56  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

same  sacrifice  with  that  of  the  cross ;  the  victim  is  one 
and  the  same,  Christ  Jesus,  who  offered  himself,  once 
only,  a  bloody  sacrifice  on  the  altar  of  the  cross.  The 
bloody  and  the  nnbloody  victim  is  still  one  and  the 
same,  and  the  oblation  of  the  cross  is  daily  renewed  in 
the  encharistic  sacrifice,  in  obedience  to  the  command 
of  our  Lord,  'This  do  for  a  commemoration  of  me.' 
The  Priest  is  also  the  same,  Christ  our  Lord :  the  min- 
isters wdio  offer  this  sacrifice  consecrate  the  holy  mys- 
teries, not  in  their  own  person,  but  in  the  person  of 
Christ.  This  the  w  ords  of  consecration  declare :  the 
priest  does  not  say,  '  This  is  the  body  of  Christ,'  but, 
'  This  is  my  body ; '  and  thus  invested  with  the  charac- 
ter of  Christ,  he  changes  the  substance  of  the  bread 
and  wine  into  the  substance  of  his  real  body  and  blood. 
That  the  holy  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  therefore,  is  not 
only  a  sacrifice  of  praise  and  thanksgiving,  or  a  com- 
memoration of  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross,  but  also. a  sac- 
rifice of  propitiation,  by  which  God  is  appeased  and 
rendered  propitious,  the  pastor  will  teach  as  a  dogma 
defined  by  the  unerring  authority  of  a  General  Council 

that  <Jhrist  in  these  words,  'Do  this  in  commemoration  of  me,'  did  not 
make  the  apostles  priests,  or  that  he  did  not  ordain  that  they  and  other 
priests  should  offer  his  own  body  and  blood,  let  him  be  anathema." 
Can.  .3.  "If  any  one  say  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  is  a  sacrifice 
only  of  praise  and  thanksgiving,  or  a  bare  connnemoration  of  the  sac- 
rifice performed  iij^on  the  cross,  and  not  also  a  propUidtovj;  sacrifice : 
or  that  it  profits  only  him  who  receives  it,  and  ought  not  to  be  offered 
for  the  living  and  the  dead,  for  sins,  punishments,  satisfactions,  and 
other  necessities,  let  him  be  anathema." 

Bossuet,  in  his  Exposition  de  la  Doctrine  de  VEgllse  CatJwlique.  which 
was  written  for  the  purpose  of  conciliating  the  French  Protestants, 
softens  the  statement  of  the  Coimci],  or,  at  least,  cites  (in  13)  the  mild- 
est language  of  Sess.  22,  c.  1,  and  insists  that  the  church  in  offering 
Christ  to  God  in  this  sacrameut,  does  the  same  thing  which  is  done  in 
the  Reformed  Church,  except  that  the  one  affirms  and  the  other  de- 
nies the  real  j^resence.  He  denies  that  Rome  pretends  to  offer  any  new 
propitiation  for  the  appeasing  of  God  anew,  as  if  he  had  not  been  suf- 
ficiently appeased  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross;  or  that  any  supplement 
is  made  to  the  price  of  our  redemption,  as  if  it  were  insufficient.  He 
represents  all  as  being  done  in  the  sacrament  in  the  way  of  intercession 
and  application.  Yet  he  expressly  holds  the  doctrine  of  Trent,  and 
what  that  is  we  have  seen. 


Apostolical  Succession.  57 

of  tlie  clinrch."  Tlie  papists  make  a  distinction,  in- 
deed, between  the  encliarist  considered  as  a  sacrament 
and  the  sacrifice^'  but  the  distinction  is  of  no  importance 
in  the  present  argument. 

Further,  the  papists  hold  that  all  grace  is  conveyed 
through  the  sacraments;  that  "by  them  all  true  right- 
eousness begins,  or  being  begun  is  increased,  or  hav- 
ing been  lost  is  restored."!  They  hold,  also,  that  the 
grace  is  always  conferred  upon  the  recipient  of  the 
sacrament,  where  duly  administered,  unless  the  recipi- 
ent places  a  bar  or  obstacle  in  the  way ;  and  the  Trent 
Council  curses  all  who  say  the  contrary.  J  None,  there- 
fore, can  be  saved  without  baptism, §  and  all  baptized  bi- 
faiits  (since  they  can  oppose  no  "  bar")  are  regenerated. 
As  the  sacraments  can  be  administered  (except  in  cer- 
tain extreme  cases)  only  by  a  priest,  the  priests  have  the 
whole  matter  of  salvation  absolutely  in  their  own  hands. 


*  See  tlie  lioman  Catechism  on  the  Sacrament  of  the  Eiicharist.  It 
says:  "The  difference  between  the  eucharist  as  a  sacrament  and  a  sac- 
rifice is  very  great,  and  is  twofold.  As  a  sacrament,  it  is  perfected  by 
consecration;  as  a  sacrifice,  all  its  elficacy  consists  in  its  oblation. 
When  deposited  in  a  tabernacle,  or  borne  to  the  sick,  it  is  therefore 
not  a  sacrifice,  but  a  sacrament.  As  a  sacrament,  it  is  also  to  the  wor- 
thy receiver  a  source  of  merit,  and  brings  with  it  all  those  advantages 
which  we  have  already  mentioned ;  as  a  sacrifice,  it  is  not  only  a  soiirce 
of  merit,  but  also  of  satisfaction.  As  in  his  passion  our  Lord  merited 
and  satisfied  for  us,  so  in  the  oblation  of  this  sacrifice,  which  is  a  bond 
of  Christian  unity.  Christians  merit  the  fruit  of  his  passion,  and  satisfy 
for  sin." 

t  Condi.  Trident.,  Decretmn  de  SacramenUs,  Sess.  7,  prmnium. 

X  Canon  6,  of  Sess.  7.  In  Canon  8  all  are  cursed  who  say  that  the 
sacraments  do  not  confer  grace  ex  opere  operato,  but  that  faith  alone 
in  the  divine  promise  is  sufficient  to  obtain  the  grace. 

§  Baptism  is  of  great  consequence  in  Kome,  as  it  ought  to  be,  seeing 
they  make  it  the  sacrament  of  justification.  But  the  glory  of  the 
priesthood  consists  in  the  privilege  of  immolating  Christ,  and  of  judi- 
cially absolving  men  from  their  sins.  Baptism  may  be  administered 
even  by  a  woman,  by  Jews,  infidels,  and  heretics,  in  case  of  necessity, 
provided  they  intend  to  do  what  the  church  does  in  that  act  of  her 
ministry.  Gat.  Trid.  on  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism.  But  the  eucharist, 
the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  and  judicial  absolution,  can  be  administered 
only  by  a  priest.  Con.  Trid.  JSess.  14,  chapter  6  ;  Cat.  on  the  Euchar- 
ist, 12. 


58  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

The  power  of  tlie  priest  to  confer  grace  by  the  sacra- 
ments is  not  impaired  by  his  personal  character,  how- 
ever fouL  He  may  be  living  in  "mortal"  sin  ;  he  may, 
like  the  Pope  Alexander  Borgia,  be  mixing  poison  with 
the  wine  which  he  is  about  to  give  his  friend  at  his  own 
table  ;  nevertheless,  he  can  confer  the  grace  of  God  in 
the  sacraments  ;  and,  in  Can.  12,  Sess.  7,  the  holy 
Council  curses  all  w^ho  say  the  contrary.  The  sacra- 
ments are  everything ;  the  preaching  of  the  word  no- 
thing, in  this  holy,  catholic,  apostolic  church. 

Again,  as  to  the  mode  in  which  the  priests,  since  the 
time  of  the  apos  les,  become  their  successors  Rome  holds 
that  it  is  by  the  sacrament  of  orders.  The  main  points 
of  their  doctrine  are :  («),  That  as  Christ  made  the 
apostles  priests  by  imparting  to  them  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  the  power  of  judicial  absolution  (John  xx.  22,  23), 
so  the  apostles  have  transmitted  to  their  successors, 
the  bishops  of  Rome,  the  same  gifts ;  which  bishops, 
in  their  turn,  by  imposition  of  hands,  communicate  the 
priesthood  to  the  lower  order.  (?>),  That,  as  in  the  sac- 
raments of  baptism  and  confirmation  an  indelil)le  char- 
acter is  imparted,  so  also  in  the  sacrament  of  orders. 
By  this  indelible  character,  he  who  has  once  become  a 
priest  is  always  a  priest ;  he  can  never  again  become  a 
laic.''^  (t),  That  with  this  process  the  people  have  no- 
thing at  all  to  do.  They  have  no  voice  at  all  in  mak- 
ing priests.  Canon  7,  Sess.  23  of  Trent.  The  priest- 
hood is  a  distinct  caste.  They  perpetuate  the  church 
as  the  apostles  created  it  before  them. 

These  points  constitute  the  essence  of  the  doctrine 
of  orders.  The  apostolical  succession  as  held  in  Rome 
is,  therefore,  summarily  comprehended  in  the  three  as- 
sertions: (a),  That  there  is  a  true  and  proper  priest- 
hood on  earth,  under  the  Christian  dispensation.  (^), 
That  there  is  a  true  and  proper  sacrifice,  to  be  continu- 
ally offered,  (c').  That  the  succession  of  priests  is  se- 
cured by  the  sacrament  of  orders ;  this  last  point,   of 

*SeeCon.Tricl.  D.  and  C,  Sess.  23,  Can.  4. 


Apostolical  Succession".  59 

course,  involving  the  assertion  of  tlie  succession  as  a 
fact  in  history.  We  propose  to  consider  these  in  their 
order. 

I,  As  to  the  priesthood  under  the  ''new  law,"  as  the 
papists  delight  to  call  the  gos])el,  we  remark  : 

1.  That  scarcely  any  truth  is  more  clearly  revealed 
in  the  New  1'estament  than  that  of  the  universal  priest- 
hood of  believers,  llie  passages  in  which  it  is  either 
expressly  asserted  or  taken  for  granted,  are  too  nu- 
merous to  be  cited.  One  or  two  will  suffice  :  "  Ye  are 
a  chosen  generation,  a  royal  priesthood,  a  holy  nation, 
a  peculiar  people."  1  Pet.  ii.  9;  comp.  vs.  5.  The  pa- 
pist will  of  course  say  that  this  description  of  believers 
under  the  gospel  is  identical  with  that  of  Israel  under 
the  law  (Ex.  xix.  5,6);  and  that,  as  the  general  priestly 
character  of  Israel  was  consistent,  in  point  of  fact,  with 
the  existence  of  a  special  order  of  priests  in  the  family 
of  Aaron  ;  so  a  special  order  of  priests  is  by  no  means  in- 
compatible with  the  universal  priesthood  of  believers 
under  the  gospel.  As  an  abstract  proposition,  this  may 
be  conceded;  but  there  is  a  very  great  difference  be- 
tween the  two  dispensations  in  point  of  fact.  First, 
there  is  no  institution  of  a  priesthood  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament as  there  was  in  the  Old.  Second,  there  is  no  limi- 
tation put  upon  the  exercise  of  priestly  functions  or 
privileges  on  the  part  of  the  priestly  people  under  the 
New  Testament  as  there  was  under  the  Old.  Let  the 
papists  show  us  any  chapters  in  the  New  Testament 
corresponding  with  such  as  the  Leviticus  viii.  in  the 
Old,  and  we  will  believe  them.  They  have  their  "sol- 
emn ceremonies"  in  'the  consecration  of  their  priests ; 
but  they  are  ceremonies  which  the  court  of  Rome,  not 
Jesus  Christ,  has  ordained.  If  they  say  they  observe 
the  rites  ordained  in  Leviticus,  then  they  confess  that 
their  priesthood  is  after  all  the  Aaronic,  and  not,  as 
they  have  been  accustomed  to  boast,  a  priesthood  after 
the  order  of  Melchisedec.  Let  them  show  us  in  the 
New  Testament  any  such  stern  prohibitions  against  the 


60  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

people  intermeddling  with  priestly  functions  as  there 
are  in  the  Old.  So  far  from  finding  any  such  prohibi- 
tions, we  find  no  discrimination  at  all,  in  regard  to 
priestly  character  and  function,  betAA^een  the  ministry 
and  the  people,  or  (to  nse  the  language  of  Rome)  be- 
tween the  clergy  and  the  laity.  It  is  the  duty  and  privi- 
lege of  all  alike  to  oifer  spirHual  sacrifices  acceptable 
to  God  through  Jesus  Christ.  The  writer  of  the  Ejjis- 
tle  to  the  Jlehreics  exhorts  his  brethren,  without  any 
note  of  distinction,  to  do  what  the  high  priest  alone 
could  do,  and  that  only  once  a  year,  under  the  law — 
"to  draAv  near  with  a  true  heart  unto  God."  He  bases 
this  exhortation  upon  the  fact  that  they  have  "bold- 
ness to  enter  into  the  holiest  by  the  blood  of  Jesus,  by  a 
new  and  living  way  which  he  hath  consecrated  for  them, 
through  the  veil,  that  is  to  say,  his  flesh ;  and  upon  the 
fact  that  they  have  a  High  Priest  over  the  house  of 
God."     Heb.  X.  19-22. 

2.  The  apostles  are  nowhere  called  priests,  or  rep- 
resented as  performing  priestly  functions.  Considering 
the  extent  to  which  the  institutions  and  technical  lan- 
guage of  the  Old  Testament  moulded  the  forms  of  rep- 
resentation in  the  New,  this  fact  is  very  noteworthy. 
The  apostles  do  sometimes  use  the  sacerdotal  and  sacri- 
cial  language  of  the  Old  Testament  to  describe  their 
Avork,  but  it  is  always  under  conditions  Avhich  show, 
beyond  doubt,  that  they  are  speaking  figuratively. 
Thus  Paul  (Rora.  xv.  16)  speaks  of  himself  as  "  the  min- 
ister (As!T0'j(fy6u)  of  Jesus  Christ  to  the  Gentiles,  minis- 
tering {Izno'joyo'r^za)  the  gospel  of  God,  that  the  offer- 
ing up  {-(lorrd'oua)  of  the  Gentiles  might  be  acceptable, 
being  sanctified  {fjycaafdw^)  by  the  HoW  Ghost."  ^  Here 
observe,  (a).  That    while  the    word  As^Touoyou  has  no 

•  The  argumeut  here  is  all  the  stronger,  because,  as  Whately  says 
(Cautions  for  the  Times,  p.  40),  "Paul  is  actually  seai'ching  for  some- 
thing in  his  own  office,  to  parallel  the  function?  of  a  priest" — and 
this  is  all  that  he  can  find.  How  differently  would  a  Papal  priest,  noic 
writing  to  the  church  of  Rome,  express  himself  ! 


Apostolical  Succession.  61 

strictly  sacerdotal  sense,  being  used  for  any  public 
functionary  (as  for  instance,  in  this  very  epistle,  chap- 
ter xiii.  6,  of  the  civil  magistrate ;  comp.  vs.  4,  didxouo^)^ 
yet  we  concede  that  there  may  be  a  reference  to  its  sa- 
cerdotal use  in  the  Septuagint.  (See  Deut.  x.  8  ;  xvii. 
12  ;  Joel  i.  9  ;  comp.  Hebrew  x.  11).  {7j),  That  the  second 
word,  which  is  undoubtedly  sacerdotal,  is  explained 
by  the  nature  of  the  offering  which  is  made  to  God,  to 
wit,  the  Gentiles,  not  the  mass.  If  the  Gentiles  are  a 
sacrifi.ce  in  the  strict  and  literal  sense  of  the  term,  then, 
of  course,  Paul  is  a  priest,  in  the  same  sense.  But  the 
first  will  not  be  asserted,  we  apprehend,  even  by  a  pa- 
pist. The  truth  is,  Paul's  statement  amounts  to  this  : 
"  I  am  indeed  a  priest,  but  my  priestly  functions  are 
exercised  in  preaching  the  glad  tidings  to  the  Gentiles, 
and  in  making  an  offering  to  God  of  those  who  are, 
through  the  word,  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  If 
the  priesthood  of  Rome  were  of  this  kind,  no  objection 
could  be  made  to  it.  But  it  is  altogether  different.  Its 
office  is  to  offer  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  for  the  living 
and  the  dead. 

We  have  said  that  the  cqjostles  use  sacrificial  lan- 
guage in  describing  their  work.  But  Paul,  we  believe, 
is  the  only  one  of  the  apostles  who  does ;  and  he  only 
in  the  instance  cited,  unless  Rom.  xii.  1,  Phil.  ii.  17,  2 
Tim.  iv.  6,  be  considered  instances.  Peter,  the  "  first 
pope,"  never  uses  it,  so  far  as  we  have  been  able  to 
find,  in  special  application  to  the  ministry.  His  style 
is,  "  We  will  give  ourselves  to  the  ministry  (our/Mvia)  of 
the  word  and  to  prayer."  Acts  vi.  4.  "  The  elders  who 
are  among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  your  fellow-elder  and 
a  witness  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  also  a  partaker 
of  the  glory  that  shall  be  revealed ;  feed  the  flock  of 
God  which  is  among  you,  taking  the  oversight  thereof 
(or,  performing  the  office  of  bishops  in  it),  not  by  con- 
straint, but  willingly;  not  for  filthy  lucre,  but  of  a 
ready  mind ;  neither  as  being  lords  over  God's  heri- 


62  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

tage,  ^  but  being  ensamples  to  the  flock."  1  Pet.  v.  1-3. 
How  strange  would  sucli  words  sound  from  the  mouth 
of  his  pretended  successors!  It  is  too  plain  that  the 
ministry  of  the  apostles  was  not  the  same  as  the  min- 
istry of  the  papal  priesthood ;  and  that  if  the  papal 
ministers  are  true  and  proper  priests,  they  possess  a 
dignity  to  which  the  apostles,  with  Peter  at  their  head, 
did  not  dream  of  aspiring.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say 
that  we  hold  with  the  apostles. 

3.  Not  only  do  the  apostles  say  that  all  believers  are 
priests,  and  claim  no  special  priestly  character  for 
themselves,  but  a  special  argument  is  made  by  one  of 
them  to  sliOAv  that  there  can  be  no  true  and  proper 
priests  on  earth  since  the  ottering  of  Jesus  Christ  and 
his  passing  into  the  heavens.  The  doctrine  of  Rome 
makes  utter  nonsense  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
and  particularly  of  the  7th  chapter.  The  papists  say 
that  their  priesthood  is  of  the  order  of  Melchisedec ; 
and  yet  the  main  feature  of  the  priesthood  of  Melchis- 
edec, according  to  the  apostle,  is  that  it  admits  of  7W 
succession.  "They  truly  (the  Levitical  priests)  were 
many  priests,  because  they  were  not  suffered  to  con- 
tinue b}'  reason  of  death ;  but  this  man,  because  he 
continueth  ever,  hath  an  unchangeable  priesthood." 
Heb.  vii.  23,  24.  But  why  quote  particular  verses? 
Almost  ever}^  verse  in  this  chapter  is  a  dagger  which 
goes  to  the  heart  of  the  papal  theory.  Nothing  but 
the  most  audacious  effrontery  could  venture  to  main- 
tain such  a  tlieor}^  in  the  face  of  such  an  argument. 
The  papal  priesthood  is  simply  an  insult,  impudent 
and  shameless,  to  Christ,  w^ho  alone  possesses  a  priest- 
hood after  the  order  of  Melchisedec.  It  is  not  only 
destitute  of  even  the  shadow  of  evidence,  but  is  a  di- 

*This  is  the  only  instance  in  which  the  word  z/^^y^c  is  used  of  j^cr- 
sons  in  the  New  Testament :  and  yet  it  is  the  word  from  which  the 
word  cler(]y  comes.  According  to  this  passage,  the  clergy,  or  inherit- 
ance of  God,  is  the  laity,  or  flock,  which  is  in  danger  of  being  lorded 
over.  See  Camj)beirs  Lect.  on  Eccl.  History,  L.  9.  This  is  worthy  of 
being  noted,  because  the  distinction  of  clergy  and  laity  came  in  with 
the  notion  of  a  sacerdotal  ministry  in  the  church. 


Apostolical  Succession.  63 

rect  contradiction  to  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures ; 
and  being  the  corner-stone  of  the  apostolical  succes- 
sion, the  whole  structure  tumbles  into  ruins,  or,  rather, 
is  proved  to  be  "the  baseless  fabric  of  a  vision." 

II.  As  to  the  next  element  involved  in  this  doctrine, 
the  power  of  the  priesthood  to  offer  a  true  and  proper 
sacrifice,  it  need  not  detain  us  so  long.     For, 

1.  If  there  be  no  proper  priesthood  on  earth,  there  can 
of  course  be  no  proper  offering  of  sacrifice.  Priesthood 
and  sacrifice  go  together ;  together  they  stand  or  fall. 

2.  The  only  true  and  proper  sacrifice  which  the  pa- 
pal priests  pretend  to  offer  is  that  of  the  mass;  and 
this  is  a  pure  invention  of  men,  instigated  no  doubt 
by  the  devil,  that  restless  plotter  against  the  glory  of 
Christ  and  the  salvation  of  his  church. 

It  would  be  out  of  place  in  this  discussion  to  enter 
into  an  elaborate  arojument  against  the  sacrifice  of  the 
mass.  It  will  be  sufficient  to  say,  (a),  That  the  silence - 
of  the  Scriptures  seals  its  condemnation.  It  is  alto- 
gether incredible  that  nothing  shoald  be  said  about 
any  sacrifice  in  the  eucharist,  if  that  ordinance  were 
a  sacrifice,  and  especially  if  it  had  occupied  the 
place  in  the  religion  of  the  apostles  which  it  occupies 
in  the  religion  of  Rome — if  it  had  been  considered  a 
fundamental  point  and  necessary  to  the  proper  observ- 
ance of  Christian  worship.  The  apostles  give  line  upon 
line  and  precept  upon  precept  in  regard  to  things  which 
the  papists  themselves  would  confess  to  be  of  very  in- 
ferior importance,  and  yet  say  nothing  about  this.  This 
silence  is  the  more  remarkable  upon  the  papal  theory, 
because  the  doctrine  of  the  mass  is,  by  their  own  con- 
fession, hard  to  be  believed,  indeed  plainly  contradicted 
even  by  the  testimony  of  the  senses,  and  therefore  lia- 
ble to  the  strongest  assaults  of  Satan.  Further,  how 
can  these  Judaizers  account  for  the  fact  that,  while  in 
the  old  law.  there  is  constant  mention  of  priests  and 
sacrifices,  and  most  minute  details  as  to  both,  we  find 
nothing  corresponding  in  the  new?     it  is  indeed  an 


64  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

awful  wystery,  since  the  apostles  have  not  even  at- 
tempted to  throw  any  light  upon  it. 

Bnt  not  too  fast.  Tlie  papists  pretend  that  the}^  do 
find  in  the  New  Testament  a  sacrificial  character  as- 
cribed to  the  eucharist.  For  example,  1  Cor.  x.  21 ; 
Heb.  xiii.  10.  Now,  as  to  the  first  passage,  it  is  snfii- 
cient  to  remark  that  Panl  does  not  compare  the  table 
of  the  eucharist  with  the  altiw  of  the  Gentiles,  but  the 
Lord's  table  with  the  tahle  of  demons.  The  table  of 
demons  is  not  the  altar  of  the  Gentiles  upon  which 
they  sacrificed  to  their  idols,  but  the  tahle  upon  which, 
after  the  sacrifice  had  been  ofiered,  the  meats  were 
spread  for  a  feast  in  honor  of  the  idol.  And  even  if 
the  comparison  had  been  one  between  the  Lord's  table 
and  altars,  the  conclusion  would  not  follow  which  papal 
logic  seeks  to  draw;  for  the  apostle  is  not  concerned 
about  the  reason  and  nature  of  altar  or  sacrifice,  but 
only  about  the  communion  or  participation  of  the  wor- 
shippers with  it.  He  aims  to  show  that  the  Corinthi- 
ans could  not  Avith  a  good  conscience  be  present  at 
these  feasts  in  the  idol-temples,  because  they  had  been 
made  partakers  of  the  Lord's  supper,  and  so  had  com- 
munion with  Christ  and  professed  his  religion,  as  those 
who  ate  of  the  ancient  victims  under  the  law  were  made 
"partakers  of  the  altar,"  that  is,  professed  the  Jewish 
religion.^ 

As  to  Heb.  xiii.  10,  we  remark  that  nothing  is  said 
here  about  the  eucharist ;  that  the  only  sacrifices  men- 
tioned in  'the  context  as  connected  Avith  this  altar  are 
praise  emd  ahns-giving  (vs.  15,  16);  that  the  altar  is 
said  to  be  Christ  himself  in  vs.  15 ;  t  and  in  vs.  9  we 
have  a  solemn  warning  against  just  such  a  religion  as 
Eome  teaches — a  religion  of  meats  and  not  of  grace. 

*  See  Turretiu,  L.  19,  Q.  29.  0pp.  3,  p.  456,  Carter's  Ed 
t  So  Aquinas:  "This  altar  is  either  the  cross  of  Christ,  or  Christ 
himself,  in  whom  and  by  whom  we  offer  our  praj-ers  to  God."  Bel- 
larmine,  though  not  very  scrupulons  about  the  arguments  he  uses, 
does  not  urge  this  place,  because  many  Catholics  understand  by  altav 
here,  Christ  and  the  cross.     See  Turret,  ut  supra. 


Apostolical  Succession.  65 

{b),  The  only  other  argument  we  shall  mention 
against  the  mass  is  that  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
The  argument  is  of  the  same  sort  with  that  respecting 
the  priesthood.  As  the  perfection  of  the  priesthood  of 
Christ  admits  of  no  succession  of  mortal  priests,  so 
the  perfection  of  his  sacrifice  admits  of  no  repeated 
sacrifices.  Let  us  quote  one  passage  only  from  the 
Hebrews:  "Nor  yet  that  Christ  should  offer  himself 
often',  as  the  high  priest  entereth  into  the  holy  place 
every  year  with  the  blood  of  others ;  for  then  must  he 
often  have  suffered  since  the  foundation  of  the  world ; 
but  now  once  in  the  end  of  the  world  hath  he 
appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself. 
And  as  it  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  but  after 
this  the  judgment;  so  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear 
the  sins  of  many;  and  unto  them  that  look  for  him 
shall  he  appear  the  second  time,  without  sin  unto  sal- 
vation. For  the  law,  having  a  shadow  of  good  things 
to  come,  .  .  .  can  never,  with  those  sacrifices  which 
they  offered  year  by  3^ear  continually,  make  the  com- 
ers thereunto  perfect.  For  then  would  they  not  have 
ceased  to  be  offered?  because  that  the  worshippers, 
once  purged,  should  have  had  no  more  conscience  of 
sins.  But  in  those  sacrifices  there  is  a  remembrance 
again  made  of  sins  every  year."  Heb.  ix.  25-28;  x. 
1-3.  This  sword  of  the  Spirit  effectually  cuts  the 
throat  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass.  With  respect  both 
to  the  priesthood  and  the  sacrifice,  the  papists  have 
done  the  very  thing  against  which  the  whole  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  is  a  warning.  They  have  apostatized 
from  the  gospel,  and  have  gone  back  to  Judaism. 

Having  thus  disposed  of  the  second  element  of  the 
doctrine  of  succession,  we  may  tarry,  before  proceed- 
ing to  the  next,  to  say  a  word  or  two  in  reference  to 
the  doctrine  of  sacramental  grace  in  all  its  forms. 
First :  The  whole  idea  of  the  papists  and  their  apists, 
that  salvation  is  conveyed  through  the  sacraments 
rather  than  through  the  word,  is  utterly  foreign  to  the 


66  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

thinking  and  language  of  the  New  Testament,  which 
gives  this  prominence  to  the  word  and  not  to  the  sac- 
raments. Take  an  example  or  two  out  of  very  many. 
Paul  says  to  the  Corinthians  (1  Epistle  i.  14-17),  "  I 
thank  God  I  baptized  none  of  you  but  Crispus  and 
Gains,  lest  any  should  say  tliat  I  had  baptized  in  my 
own  name.  .  .  .  For  Christ  sent  me  not  to  haptize,  hut 
to  preach  the  gospel''  So  Peter:  "Being  born  again, 
not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  hxj  the 
icord  of  God,  which  liveth  and  abideth  for  ever;  .  .  . 
and  this  is  the  word  wliicli  by  the  gospel  is  preached 
unto  you."  1  Peter  i.  23-25.  And  even  where  the 
sacrament  is  spoken  of  as  the  means  of  regeneration, 
it  is  almost  always  coupled  with  the  word,  or,  if  not, 
sometliing  is  added  in  order  to  guard  against  the  error 
tliat  there  is  an}'  efficacy  in  it  ex  ojjere  operato.  Thus 
in  Epli.  V.  26,  Paul  speaks  of  the  cliurch  as  sanctified 
and  cleansed  "with  the  washing  of  water  hy  the  word.'' 
"Go  ...  preach  the  gospel.  ...  He  tliat  believeth 
and  is  baptized  shall  l>e  saved."  Mark  xvi.  So  Peter, 
in  speaking  of  baptism  as  saving  us,  takes  care  to  say 
that  he  is  not  speaking  of  the  outward  ordinance,  but 
the  answer  of  a  £:ood  conscience  toward  God.  1  Peter 
iii.  21. 

The  idea  of  the  apostles  was  that  the  trord  was  the 
charter  of  salvation,  and  conveyed  everything  that  was 
conveyed;  that  the  sacraments  were  a  species  of  sym- 
bolical word,  and  j;?'6>  tanto  performed  the  same  office 
as  the  word  written  or  spoken;  and  that  in  addition 
to  being  signs  or  symbolical  words,  the  sacraments 
Avere  seals  of  the  word  as  charter,  ratifying  the  cove- 
nant contained  in  the  word,  and  possessing  no  value 
whatever  if  detached  from  the  word.  The  doctrine  of 
Kome,  that  by  the  sacraments  all  grace  begins,  and 
when  begun  is  increased,  or  when  lost  is  restored,  has 
not  the  shadow  of  a  foundation  in  the  Scriptures,  or 
in  common  sense. 

Second :  That  there  is  no  grace  given  except  through 


Apostolical  Succession.  67 

the  sacraments,  is  a  doctrine  still  more  monstrous ; 
flatly  contradicting  many  passages  of  the  Scriptures. 
See,  for  example,  the  case  of  Peter  in  Acts  x.  47,  where 
the  "first  pope"  argues  from  the  fact  that  these  hea- 
then had  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  no  man  could 
forbid  them  to  be  baptized.  And  then,  be  it  observed, 
he  does  not  baptize  them  himself,  but  commands  them 
to  be  baptized.  No  more  than  his  beloved  brother 
Paul,  does  Peter  seem  to  have  been  anxious  about  the 
rite  of  baptism,  provided  only  it  was  done  decently 
and  in  order.""      But   the   papists  and  their  imitators 

*  "No  passage  can  be  produced  from  the  New  Testament  in  which 
administration  of  the  sacraments  is,  bj'  a  divine  law,  restricted  to  the 
ai)0stles  and  their  delegates,  or  the  grace  of  these  ordinances  made  de- 
pendent upon  the  persons  of  the  administrators.  See  Acts  ii  41 ;  viii. 
yb;  ix.  18.  (Ananias,  for  all  we  know,  was  a  layman.)  The  two  sac- 
raments have,  in  the  lapse  of  time,  experienced  a  very  different  fate. 
By  the  Donatist  controversy  the  principle  was  established,  that  baptism, 
even  when  administered  by  those  not  in  the  communion  with  the 
church,  if  only  the  word  and  the  element  had  been  present,  was  so 
far  valid  as  that  it  was  not  to  be  repeated  in  the  case  of  those  who, 
having  been  baptized  in  schism,  became  reconciled  to  the  charcli.  It 
was  argued  by  Augustine,  most  conclusively,  that  the  sacrament  is 
Christ's,  not  his  who  administers  it;  and  derives  its  virtue  from  the 
sacred  name  in  which  it  is  administered.  This  was  in  effect  discon- 
necting the  validity  of  the  ordinance  from  the  person  of  the  adminis- 
trator; for  though  it  was  still  maintained  that  the  recipient,  so  long  as 
he  continued  in  a  state  of  schism,  derived  no  benetit  from  his  baptism, 
still  the  ordinance  itself  was  pronounced  valid,  and,  as  such,  was  not 
to  be  repeated.  .  .  .  The  eucharist,  on  the  contrary,  has  always  been 
most  jealously  guarded  from  the  profanation  of  lay  hands.  Yet  if 
there  is  any  difference  in  the  Scriptures,  as  regards  this  point,  between 
the  two  sacraments,  baptism  is  the  one  which  has  more  the  appearance 
of  being  restricted.  (Matt,  xxviii.  19.)  But  it  is  characteristic  of  the 
church  system  to  be  most  peremptory  and  exclusive  in  its  decisions 
where  the  Scriptures  supply  the  slenderest  foundation  for  them. "  See 
Litton's  Church  of  Christ,  p.  635. 

The  validity  of  the  sacraments,  therefore,  does  not  require  them  to 
be  administered  by  certain  officers;  but  the  great  law  of  "decencj^ 
and  order  "  makes  it  necessary  that  the  church  should  appoint  certain 
persons  to  this  office ;  and  the  ministers  of  the  word,  for  obvious  rea- 
sons, are  the  persons  whom  the  church  has  appointed.  This  is  the  com- 
mon doctrine  of  the  Eeformed  theologians.  See,  for  instance,  Tur- 
retin.  Be  Necess.  Secess.  Nostra  ab  Eccl.  Rom.,  Disp.  8,  18,  (Vol. 
IV.,  p.  190  of  Carter's  Ed.,  N.  Y.,  1848).  Turretin  is  inconsistent 
with  himself.  See  his  Theolog.  Elemcli.,  L.  19.,  Q.  14.  He  admits 
6 


68  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

must  make  much  of  it,  or  their  a^Dostolical  succession 
is  nothing  worth.  Hence  they  must  "  deny  the  validity 
of  all  baptism  but  their  own,  and  in  defiance  of  decency, 
charity,  and  common  sense,  refuse  to  inter  an  infant 
who  has  not  passed  under  their  own  patent  process  of 
regeneration.  The  consequence  is  that  they  throw 
doubt  (and  many  of  them  do  not  scruple  to  avow  it) 
on  the  final  state  of  the  myriads  of  unbaptized  infants. 
Whether  they  are,  as  some  of  the  Fathers  believed, 
neither  happy  nor  miserable — consigned  to  a  state  of 
joyless  apathy,  or  condemned  to  eternal  suftering — we 
are  all,  it  seems,  in  the  dark.  We  may  hope  the  best, 
but  that  is  all  the  comfort  that  can  be  given  us.  To  a 
Christian  contemplating  this  world  of  sorrow,  it  has 
ever  been  one  of  the  most  delightful  sources  of  comso- 
lation,  that  the  decree  which  involved  even  infancy  in 
the  sentence  of  death,  has  converted  a  great  part  of 
the  primeval  curse  into  a  blessing,  and  has  peopled 
heaven  with  myriads  of  immortals,  who,  after  one  brief 
pang  of  unremembered  sorrow,  have  laid  down  forever 
the  burdens  of  humanity.  It  has  been  the  dear  belief 
of  the  Christian  mother,  that  the  provisions  of  the 
great  spiritual  economy  are  extended  to  the  infant 
whom  she  brought  forth  in  sorrow,  and  whom  she  com- 
mitted to  the  dust  with  a  sorrow  still  deeper;  that  it 
will  assuredly  welcome  her  at  the  gates  of  paradise, 
arrayed  in  celestial  beauty  and  radiant  with  a  cherub's 
smile.  But  all  these  gloriously  sustaining  hopes  must 
be  overcast  in  order  to  keep  the  mystical  power  of  re- 
generation exclusively  in  the  hands  of  the  Episcopal 
clergy.     All  charity,  all  decency,  all  humanity,  as  well 

that  some  of  the  Fathers  approved  it,  in  Q.  13.  In  case  of  necessity, 
the  general  calling  of  Christians  and  the  law  of  charity  take  the  place 
of  any  particular  calling  of  officers,  and  the  law  of  decency  and  order. 
Even  the  papists  admit  the  same  as  to  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  though 
upon  the  false  ground  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  this  ordinance  to  salva- 
tion. See  Campbell's  Lect  on  Bed.  History,  L.  IV.  (specially  pp. 
58-72)  London,  Tegg,  1840,  for  quotations  from  the  Fathers  on  the 
matter  of  authority  to  administer  the  sacraments. 


Apostolical  Succession.  69 

as  all  common  sense,  are  to  be  ontraged,  rather  than 
that  the  power  of  conferring  some  inconceivable  non- 
entity should  be  abandoned."  ^ 

Third:  This  doctrine  in  its  extreme  form  is  the 
merest  paganism,  and  resembles  much  more  the  ma- 
gical rites  and  mummeries  of  people  sunk  in  brutish, 
heathenish  ignorance,  than  that  "reasonable  service" 
which  God  requires  of  his  worshippers.  It  is  a  system 
of  forms  which  does  not  compel  men  to  recognize  a 
God,  any  more  than  the  laws  of  nature  compel  such  a 
recognition.  It  is  a  system  whose  tendency  is  directly 
to  infidelity  and  atheism.  It  supposes  that  God  de- 
parts from  his  usual  method  of  working  by  the  laws  of 
nature  to  accomplish  effects  which  can  be  discerned 
neither  by  sense  nor  reason.  The  mystic  regeneration, 
so  far  as  can  be  known,  leaves  the  person  regenerated 
in  no  respect  changed.  He  is  neither  wiser  nor  better 
than  before;  just  as  capable  of  committing  mortal  sin,. 
and  in  as  great  danger  of  eternal  damnation,  as  if  the 
priest's  hands  had  not  applied  the  magic  mixture  of 
water,  oil,  spittle,  and  salt.  It  has  not  even  the  plausi- 
bility of  the  juggler's  tricks  ;  for  the  juggler  rq^pears  to 
work  effects  which  are  extraordinary.  What  evidence 
can  miracles  afford  to  a  man  Avho  believes  the  doctrine 
of  transubstantiation  ?  Miracles  appeal  to  the  senses. 
This  is  the  differentia  by  Avhich  they  are  discriminated 
from  every  other  immediate  act  of  God  upon  the  crea- 
ture. But  in  transubstantiation  we  are  required  to  be- 
lieve a  miracle  which  contradicts  the  senses.  How 
then  can  a  miracle  ever  authenticate  a  divine  revela- 
tion ?  If  the  reality  of  the  change  in  the  substance  of 
the  bread  and  wine  is  ascertained  to  us  by  the  words, 
"  This  is  my  body,"  the  question  may  be  asked,  how 
are  we  to  know  that  these  words  were  ever  spoken  or 
written  ?  It  will  not  do  to  appeal  to  the  testimony  of 
eye  or  ear,  for  transubstantiation  pronounces  the  testi- 

*  Edinburgh  Rem6U\  for  April,  1843,  p.  274,  Amer.  Ed. 


70  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

mony  of  the  senses  untrustworthy.  If  God  were  to  im- 
press the  reahty  of  the  fact  upon  the  mind  directly, 
still  the  revelation  could  never  go  beyond  the  mind 
that  received  it.  It  could  never  be  authenticated  to  the 
minds  of  other  men.  So  that  the  doctrine  of  sacra- 
mental grace  is  either  nothing  at  all,  a  pure  imposture, 
or  its  legitimate  consequence  is  absolute  pyrrhonism. 
It  is  substantially  the  philosophy  of  Hume  under  a  re- 
ligious guise. 

III.  We  proceed  now  to  the  last  point  involved  in 
the  papal  doctrine  of  succession.  It  might  seem  su- 
perfluous to  argue  the  question  any  further.  If  there 
was  no  priesthood  instituted  by  Christ,  if  the  apostles 
were  not  priests,  then  of  course  there  can  be  no  suc- 
cession of  priests.  Kemove  the  facts  of  a  priesthood 
and  a  sacrifice  (in  the  sense  before  explained,  the  pa- 
pal sense)  in  the  apostolic  age,  you  remove  the  very 
foundation  of  the  apostolical  succession,  and  the  whole 
structure  tumbles  into  ruins.  This,  we  venture  to  think, 
has  been  very  effectually  done,  if  the  Scriptures  are  to 
be  the  rule  of  judgment.  But  we  shall  undertake  ex 
ccbundanti,  as  the  logicians  say,  to  prove  that,  even  if  the 
apostles  were  priests,  they  have  had  no  successors,  or  at 
least  that  there  are  none  who  can  know  and  prove 
themselves  to  be  such,  which  amounts  to  the  same 
thing.  De  noii  apparenUhas  et  de  non  exidentibus  eadem 
est  7rUio. 

1.  It  is  a  principle  clearly  laid  down  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, that  no  one  may  presume  to  undertake  sacer- 
dotal functions  without  a  divine  call  or  commission. 
"  No  man  taketh  this  honor  unto  himself,  but  he  that 
is  called  of  God,  as  was  Aaron."     Heb.  v.  4.'"'     Every 

*  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  these  words  should  generally  be  quoted  by 
Protestant  writers  in  proof  of  the  necessity  of  a  divine  call  to  the  or- 
dinary ofdcers  in  the  church.  Such  a  call  is  indeed  necessary,  but 
not  a  direct  and  immediate  call,  such  as  the  call  of  Aaron,  and  of 
Christ,  to  their  respective  orders  of  priesthood.  This  sacerdotal  call 
is  immediate,  without  the  intervention  of  the  church,  and  in  the 
Hebrews  (chap,  v.)  the  writer  uses  the  words  in  application  only  to 


Apostolical  Succession.  71 

attempt  on  the  part  of  unauthorized  persons  to  invade 
the  priest's  office  among  the  Jews  was  visited  with  se- 
vere penalties.  For  this  offence  Korah  and  his  com- 
pany were  destroyed,  and  Uzziah  struck  with  leprosy. 
The  papists  of  course  apply  this  principle  to  their  pre- 
tended priesthood,  a  fortiori,  since  the  Christian 
priesthood  as  much  excels  the  Levitical  in  dignity,  as 
the  new  law  is  superior  to  the  old.  So  Christ,  the 
founder  of  the  new  priesthood,  having  been  called  of 
God  as  was  Aaron,  called  his  successors,  the  apostles, 
and  the  apostles  their  successors,  the  bishops,  trans- 
mitting to  them,  along  with  the  authority  of  priests,  the 
ordinary  sacerdotal  grace  which  they  themselves  had 
received  from  Christ.  The  bishops  of  the  apostolic 
age  have  in  their  turn  handed  down  the  same  grace  to 
their  successors,  to  the  present  time,  by  consecration 
or  ordination.^^" 

2.  The  power  thus  transmitted  is  twofold — ^a  power 
of  order,  and  a  powxr  of  jurisdiction.  The  power  of 
order  is  the  power  of  immolating  and  offering  Christ  in 
the  eucharist,  as  before  explained  and  refuted.  The 
power  of  jurisdiction  is  the  power  of  judicial  absolu- 
tion from  guilt.  *  The  apostles  received  the  first  powder 
at  the  institution  of  the  supper ;  the  last,  when  Christ 
breathed  on  them  after  his  resurrection,  and  said, 
"Keceive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost,"  etc.  John  xx.  22,  23. 
Cone.  Trid.  Sess.  14,  c.  1.  See  Litton  on  the  Church 
of  Christ,  pp.  531-2. 

3.  The  external  instrument  of  transmission  is  the 
sacrament  of  orders,  the  administration  of  which  be- 
longs to  the  bishop  alone.  The  visible  sign  of  the 
sacrament   is  the  laying   on  of   hands.     The    inward 

Christ  and  Aaron.  Christ's  priesthood  admitted  of  no  succession,  and 
the  words  admit  of  no  further  application  since  his  inauguration  into 
office.  In  the  case  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  they  were  true  of  all  his 
successors,  because  the  succession  was  determined  by  birth.  Of  this 
more  hereafter. 

*  See  Litton  on  tlie  Church  of  Christ,  p.  530,  et  seq. 


72  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

effect  is  twofold  :  first,  the  impressing  upon  a  soul  of 
spiritual  characte?'  or  stamp,  which  is  indelible,  so  that 
he  who  is  once  made  a  priest  can  never  return  to  the 
condition  of  a  layman ;  and  second,  grace,  not  sancti- 
fying, but  ministerial  (greitia  gratis  datct^^  for  the  valid 
performance  of  sacerdotal  functions.  Cone.  Trid.  Sess. 
23,  Can.  4.     Litton,  p.  532. 

This  is  a  clear  and  consistent  theory.  If  no  sacra- 
ments and  no  absolution,  then  no  church.  If  no  law- 
ful priesthood,  then  no  sacraments,  at  least  no  eucha- 
rist  and  no  absolution.  If  no  successors  of  the  apos- 
tles, then  no  lawful  priesthood.  If  not  in  communion 
with  the  bishop  of  Rome,  no  successors  of  the  apostles. 
Hence,  beyond  the  pale  of  Rome,  no  covenanted 
grace. 

This  tremendous  doctrine  (for  if  it  be  true,  it  is  tre- 
mendously true,  and  if  false,  it  is  a  tremendous  lie)  we 
jDropose  to  examine  in  the  light  of  the  Scriptures,  of 
the  papist's  own  principles,  and  of  history.  The  re- 
sult of  this  examination  will  show  that  ^q  factoi  such 
a  succession  is  altogether  incredible,  and  that  It  is  the 
height  of  audacit}"  for  any  Roman  priest  of  the  present 
day  to  affirm  that  he  knows  himself  to  be  a  true  priest. 
The  examination  will  be  confined  to  the  last  of  the 
above  mentioned  points,  as  the  others  have  been 
sufficiently  discussed  in  the  preceding  part  of  this 
article. 

1.  The  Scriptures  make  no  mention  anywhere  of  the 
consecration  of  any  church  officers,  as  such.  All  be- 
lievers are  priests,  and  are  consecrated  to  the  worship 
and  service  of   God   by  the  indwelling   of  the  Holy 

*  "  (r.  (J.  d."  the  extraordinary  gifts  or  charisms,  bestowed  for  the 
edification  of  the  whole  church,  opposed  to  '' (jratia  gratum  facieus" 
the  gifts  bestowed  upon  any  one  for  his  own  salvation,  faith,  hope, 
&c.  An  unhappy  terminolocjy  of  the  schoolmen,  so  far  as  it  implies 
that  all  charisms  are  not  gratuitously  given.  If  the  phrases  are  used 
at  all,  the  first  must  describe  the  sovereign  benemlence  of  Grod  as  exhib- 
ited in  all  the  charisms  ;  the  second,  the  effect  of  this  benevolence  in 
making  us  "  accepted  "  (^rrates)  in  Christ.  See  Turretin,  L.  III.,  Q. 
20,  \   8,  of  Carter's  Ed.  Vol.  1,  p.  219. 


Apostolical  Succession.  73 

Ghost,  in  any  calling  Avliich  the  sovereign  will  of  God 
may  appoint  for  them.  No  word  signifying  consecra- 
tion is  used  of  the  appointment  of  church  officers,  as 
such.  We  shall  not  waste  time  in  proving  a  negative. 
We  defy  papists  and  prelatists  to  produce  a  single 
example. 

2.  The  Scriptures  make  no  mention  of  any  ceremony 
of  consecration  to  be  used  by  church  officers  in  con- 
secrating their  successors.  The  papists  will  hardly 
insist  on  the  imposition  of  hands,  since  the  first  instance 
of  that  we  meet  with  in  the  New  Testament  in  connec- 
tion with  the  ordination  of  church  officers  is  in  Acts 
vi.,  the  case  of  the  deacons.  This  was  a  case  in 
which  the  hands  of  the  apostles  were  laid  on  officers 
whom  the  people  had  elected ;  and  what  a  horror  the 
papists  have  of  the  people's  electing  their  own  officers 
everybody  knows.  Besides,  the  imposition  of  hands 
was  so  common  among  the  Jews  that  nobody  pretends 
that  it  always  meant  consecration ;  and  the  papists 
themselves  use  it  in  cases  where  it  is  designed  to  have 
no  such  meaning.  It  would  seem  certain,  at  least, 
that  they  attach  no  great  importance  to  this  ceremony 
in  the  sacrament  of  confirmation,  though  it  be  one  of 
the  three  sacraments  in  which  an  indelible  character  is 
imparted.  The  Tridentine  Catechism  gives  minute 
directions  for  the  celebration  of  this  sacrament :  the 
unction  of  the  forehead,  the  sign  of  the  cross,  the  kiss 
of  peace,  and  even  the  slap  on  the  cheek,  but  says  not 
a  word  about  the  imposition  of  hands.  This  is  all  the 
more  strange,  because  the  catechism  refers  to  Acts 
viii.  14-17,  in  proof  that  the  bishop  alone  has  the 
power  to  administer  this  sacrament ;  and  yet  in  that 
jDassage  it  is  expressly  said  that  "  the  apostles  laid 
their  hands  on  them  and  tliev  received  the  Holy 
Ghost."- 

*  The  Episcopal  Church  is  here  ahttle  more  consistent.  It  not  only 
alleges  the  example  of  the  apostles,  but  follows  it.  Of  course  we  do 
not  admit  that  Acts  viii.  14-17  has  anything  to  do  with  "  conlirmation, " 
either  sacrament  or  mere  ceremony. 


74  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

3.  The  Scriptures  make  no  mention  of  an  indelible 
character  in  orders,  any  more  than  in  baptism  and  con- 
firmation. That  the  papal  body  attaches  some  conse- 
quence to  it  would  seem  to  be  the  case,  from  the  fact 
that  the  Trent  Council  curses  everybody  who  ventures 
to  deny  it.  Sess.  23,  Can.  4.  Certain  we  are  that  an}^ 
pious  and  intelligent  man  might  read  the  New  Testa- 
ment (and  for  that  matter  the  Old  too)  without  ever 
thinking  of  any  indelible  character.^'  Still,  not  think- 
ing about  it  is  a  different  thing  from  denying  it.  Let 
us  therefore  examine  Gabriel  Biel,  who  flourished  less 
than  a  century  before  the  Trent  Council,  and  was  a 
great  light  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  He  expended  a 
great  deal  of  thought  and  of  research  upon  this  mys- 
tery, and  his  conclusion  is  thus  summed  up  by  Chem- 
nitz :  t  "  That  the  word  character,  in  this  sense,  is  found 
neither  in  the  Scriptures,  nor  in  the  ancient  ecclesias- 
tical writers ;  that  it  is  not  found  in  the  '  Master  of  the 
Sentences'  himself  (Lombard);  that  as  to  the  thing 
itself,  neither  the  authority  of  the  Fathers  nor  reason 
compels  us  to  posit  any  such  character;  that  the  pas- 
sages adduced  from  Dionysius,  Augustine,  Damas- 
cenus,  and  Lombard  in  favor  of  the  '  character,'  are  to 
be  expounded  rather  of  the  sacrament  of  baptism 
itself,  or  of  the  sacramental  form,  than  of  any  im]3ress 
or  stamp  made  in  fact  upon  the  soul ;  that  all  the  effects 
ascribed  to  the  character  may  be  explained  as  well 
without  the  character  as  with  it;  that  the  sacraments 
themselves  work  these  effects  without  the  character; 
that  the  things  attributed  to  the  character  are  found  in 

*  We  beg  pardon  ;  the  Roman  character  is  referred  to  in  several 
places  of  tlie  Revelation.  See  xiii  16-17  ;  xiv.  9,  11  ;  xv.  2  ;  xvi.  2, 
et  al.  The  word  is  ydpayiia.  Heb.  i.  3  is  the  only  place  in  which  the 
word  yafxiy-rif)  occurs. 

t  Examen  Concilii  Tridentini,  Sess,  7,  p  28.  This  great  work  is  a 
storehouse  of  argument  and  history  against  the  leading  dogmas  of 
Rome.  See  also  Fra  Paolo's  Hist.  G.  of  Trent,  (Courayer  French 
Trans.)  Vol.  I.  pp.  438-'9,  B.  2,  §  86. 


Apostolical  Succession.  75 

the  eucliarist,  and  in  other  sacraments,  which  are  not  sup- 
posed to  imprint  it ;  that  the  chief  reason  which  weighed 
with  the  schoolmen  for  positing  the  character  has  httle 
force ;  that  the  nnreiterableness  of  some  of  the  sacra- 
ments does  not  depend  upon  the  character,  but  upon 
the  nature  of  these  sacraments  and  the  divine  institu- 
tion ;  that  it  is  less  clear  what  the  character  is,  than 
that  baptism  is  not  to  be  reiterated ;  that  the  sole  au- 
thority for  it  is  a  passage  in  the  writings  of  Pope  In- 
nocent III.  (A.  D.  1198-1216) ;  that  the  passage  is  sus- 
ceptible of  another  interpretation :  that  a  theologian 
ought  not  to  la}^  down  anything  to  be  believed  which 
is  not  necessary  ex  fide,  et  cet.''  So  far  this  great 
champion  of  Rome.  It  would  appear,  then,  to  use  the 
language  of  the  Edinhargli  He  view,  that  this  character 
is  "a  nonentity  inscribed  with  a  very  formidable 
name — a  very  substantial  shadow."  "  As  to  the  iihi  of 
the  character,"  says  Dr.  Campbell,  "there  was  no  less 
variety  of  sentiments — some  placing  it  in  the  essence 
of  the  soul,  others  in  the  understanding ;  some  in  the 
will,  and  others  onore  plausibly  in  the  imagination; 
others  even  in  the  hand  and  tongue ;  but  by  the  gen- 
eral voice  the  body  was  excluded.  So  that  the  whole 
of  what  they  agreed  in  amounts  to  this :  that  in  the 
unreiterable  sacraments,  as  they  call  them,  something, 
they  know  not  what,  is  imprinted,  they  know  not  how, 
on  something  in  the  soul  of  the  recipient,  they  know 
not  ichere,  which  never  can  be  delected."  And  yet 
we  are  adjudged  to  the  everlasting  pains  of  hell  for 
not  believing  it.  We  are  willing  to  share  the  damna- 
toin  of  Gabriel  if  he  has  been  damned  for  not  believing 
this. 

But  what  was  the  motive  for  postulating  this  myste- 
rious nonenity  and  the  transmission  of  sacerdotal 
grace  ?  In  answer,  we  quote  the  words  of  Litton  (in 
the  Ch.  of  Christ,  pp.  534-537) :  "  Christianity  [accord- 
ing to  Rome],  being  the  new  law  of  Christ,  must  pre- 
sent the  same  general  characteristics  which  its  prede- 


76  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

cessor,  the  law  of  Moses,  did.  Now  every  legal  system 
of  religion  being  necessarily  of  an  artificial  and  arbi- 
trary character  in  its  appointments,  inasmuch  as  it  in- 
tended to  Avork  from  without  inwards,  and  to  produce 
the  disposition  which  it  does  not  find  present,  a  law 
from  without  will  regulate  in  detail  all  matters  con- 
nected with  divine  worship,  and  especialh^  will  deter- 
mine the  functions  and  persons  of  the  sacerdotal  order. 
The  permanency  of  the  external  mould  in  which  the 
worshipper  is  to  be  fashioned  to  religion  being  a  prin- 
cipal object  in  every  such  system,  the  institution  of  the 
priestly  order  will  be  positive  rather  than  natural :  it 
will  come  from  without,  not  spring  from  within.  Moral 
qualifications  for  the  ministerial  ofiice — such  as  Avis- 
dom,  or  knowledge,  or  personal  piety — Avill,  under  such 
a  system,  occupy  a  subordinate  place,  or  rather,  may 
be  altogether  dispensed  with  ;  the  great  object  being 
to  make  provision  for  a  visil)le  succession  of  sacerdotal 
persons,  Avho,  Avhatever  they  may  be  inAvardly,  shall  at 
least  possess  an  official  sanctity.  Besides,  it  is  obvious 
that  no  one  can  guarantee  the  transmission  of  moral 
endoAvments,  natural  or  spiritual.  This  object,  the  an- 
cient systems  of  religion— the  Jewish  among  the  num- 
ber— aimed  at  securing,  and  did  in  fact  secure,  by  in- 
corporating in  themselves  the  principle  of  caste  ;  that 
is,  by  attaching  the  priestly  function  to  a  certain  tribe 
or  family,  separated  for  the  purpose  from  the  rest  of 
the  nation,  and  making  it  pass  from  father  to  son  in 
the  Avay  of  natural  descent,  irrespectively  of  moral 
qualifications.  By  this  means  the  perpetual  existence 
of  a  visible  priesthood  Avas  secured;  the  only  contin- 
gency, and  that  not  a  probable  one,  which  could  de- 
stroy the  succession,  being  the  extinction  of  the  sacer- 
dotal tribe  or  family.  An  hereditary  priesthood,  the 
basis  of  the  sacerdotal  character  being  not  the  fitness 
of  the  individual,  bat  the  consecration  of  the  caste, 
is  the  natural  accompaniment  of  every  system  of  re- 
ligion Avhich  aims  at  moulding  men,  by  means  of  laAV 


Apostolical  Succession.  77 

and  discipline,  into  a  specific  type  of  religions  senti- 
ment. 

"The  Jewish  priesthood  was  instituted  on  the  prin- 
ciple just  mentioned.  The  tribe  of  Levi  was  set  apart 
to  the  ministry  of  the  tabernacle,  and  out  of  it  the  family 
of  Aaron  to  sacerdotal  functions;  and  nothing  more 
was  necessary  to  qualify  men  for  the  priesthood  than 
the  legitimacy  of  birth  and  investiture  with  the  sacred 
garments.  It  is  obvious,  that  if  anything  analogous  to 
this  was  to  reappear  under  the  Christian  dispensation, 
it  must  undergo  considerable  modifications  to  render  it 
less  strikingly  inconsistent  Avith  the  general  principles 
of  the  gospel ;  it  must  put  on  a  more  spiritual  form, 
and  one  capable  of  greater  expansiveness.  Particu- 
larly in  one  point  a  change  was  indispensable :  a  priest- 
hood propagating  itself  by  natural  descent  would  mani- 
festly be  unfitted  for  the  purposes  of  a  religion,  the  pro- 
fessed aim  of  which  is  not,  like  Judaism,  to  be  a  train- 
ing school  for  one  nation  only,  but  to  embrace  all  na- 
tions within  its  pale.  The  transmission  therefore  must 
be  independent  of  race  or  tribe.  It  is  in  fact  by  thus 
modifying  its  aspect  that  Komanism  is  enabled  to  in- 
troduce the  ministry  of  the  law  into  the  gospel.  The 
principle  of  caste  is  retained ;  but  it  appears  under  a 
new  form  better  suited  to  Christianit}^  The  powers 
which  belonged  to  the  sacred  office  are  transmitted 
only  in  one  line,  and  in  that  line  they  are  transmitted 
independently  of  any  moral  qualification  on  the  part  of 
the  recipient :  only  instead  of  priests  by  natural,  we 
have  priests  by  spiritual  descent,  the  existing  body  of 
bishops  possessing  the  power,  in  and  by  the  sacra- 
ment of  orders,  of  spiritually^  generating  pastors  for  the 
church.  As  of  old,  so  now,  the  legitimacy  of  the  min- 
isterial commission  depends  exclusively  upon  the  legiti- 
macy of  the  external  succession,  for  the  want  of  which 
no  fulness  of  natural  and  spiritual  endowment  can  com- 
pensate. Yet  we  are  not  to  suppose  that  no  internal 
grace  accompanies  the  transmission  of  orders ;  that  a 


78  ECCLESIOLGY. 

priest  becomes  a  priest  solely  by  the  visible  impo- 
sition of  hands.  Some  concession  must,  as  regards  this 
point,  be  made  to  the  general  spirit  of  Christianity, 
and  therefore  it  is  added,  that  by  the  sacrament  of  or- 
ders, working  like  all  the  others  ex  opere  ojMrato,  grace 
is  conferred;  not,  however,  sanctifying  grace,  but  the 
mystical  grace  of  priesthood,  grace  for  the  valid  per- 
formance of  holy  functions,  which  may  exist  equally 
in  those  who  have  saving  faith  in  Christ,  and  in  those 
who  have  not.  Thus  a  degree  of  inwardness  is  im- 
parted to  what  otherwise  would  be  as  purely  external 
a  matter  as  the  succession  of  Eleazer  to  Aaron.  Fi- 
nally, as  the  ancient  priests  were  always  priests,  no 
one  having  it  in  his  power  to  reverse  his  natural  birth, 
so  the  spiritual  stamp  or  impressed  character,  which  is 
a  consequence  of  ordination,  forever  distinguishes  him 
who  receives  it  from  his  brethren  in  Christ." 

The  papal  idea  of  ordination,  as  thus  described,  re- 
ceives no  sanction  from  the  word  of  God  ;  none  from 
the  Old  Testament,  much  less  from  the  New.  Under 
the  Old  Testament  the  call  of  God  determined  the 
Avhole  matter  without  the  will  of  man.  According  to 
the  papists,  the  will  of  man  determines  everything ;  for 
the  ^^ intention'' "^  of  the  officiating  bishop  or  priest  de- 
termines the  question,  whether  the  grace  belonging  to 
an}^  sacrament  shall  be  actuall}^  conferred  or  not.  The 
external  forms  may  be  strictly  canonical ;  but  who  can 
tell,  whether  the  licentious,  cock-fighting,  gambling- 
priest,  intends  to  do  the  act  which  the  church  intends? 
The  notorious  want  of  reverence  in  papal  priests — and 
the  nearer  Rome  the  more  notorious  the  want  of  rev- 
erence— makes  it  very  probable  that  in  thousands  of 
instances  of  apparent  baptism,  or  confirmation,  or 
ordination,  the  sacrament  was  a  practical  jest:  meant 
nothing  and  did  nothing.  The  current  of  spiritual 
electricity  met  with  an  obstinate  non-conductor,  was 

*  Concil.  Trident,  Sess.  7,  Can.  11;  and  Chemnitz's  Examen. 


Apostolical  Succession.  79 

arrested  and  dissipated.  Under  the  Old  Testament,  tlie 
extraordinary  providence  which  was  a  leading  feature 
of  that  dispensation,  secured  the  family  of  Aaron  from 
extinction ;  and  the  genealogical  registers  secured  the 
people  from  the  imposture  of  pretenders.  In  Rome 
no  man  can  be  sure  that  his  priest  is  not  an  imposter 
or  intruder. 

Under  the  Old  Testament  there  Avas  no  transmission 
of  sacerdotal  grace;  and  although  the  right  of  any 
man  to  be  a  priest  was  easily  ascertained,  no  man's 
spiritual  relations  or  spiritual  state  was  made  to  de- 
pend upon  the  doings  of  the  priest.  The  utmost  wrong 
that  could  be  done  him  was  external,  affecting  his  out- 
ward relations  to  the  church.  But  these  cruel  reli- 
gion-mongers boast  that  one  grand  difference  between 
the  sacraments  of  the  law  and  theirs,  is,  that  the  latter 
confer  the  grace  which  the  former  only  signify!^  If, 
therefore,  a  poor  soul  goes  to  a  priest  who  is  no  priest; 
or  if  a  true  priest  does  not  happen  (through  ignorance, 
or  malice,  or  drunkenness,  or  the  spirit  of  jesting)  to 
intend  to  do  what  the  church  intends,  the  salvation  of 
that  soul  is  put  in  extreme  jeopardy!  How  different 
this  hideous  and  cruel  abomination  from  the  merciful 
spirit  of  the  gospel,  which  says,  "Believe  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved."  Blessed  be 
God,  who  brought  our  fathers  out  of  this  "  pitchy  clojid 
of  infernal  darkness"  into  the  sunlight  of  divine  truth, 
where  we  can  "  hear  the  bird  of  morning  sing."  Right- 
eous will  be  our  doom  if  we  allow  ourselves  to  be  "re- 
involved"  in  that  cloud  again. 

When  we  compare  this  doctrine  of  sacerdotal  grace 
with  the  teachings  of  the  New  Testament,  the  contra- 

*  The  Tridentine  Catechism  says  that  "the  sacraments  of  the  old  law 
were  instituted  as  signs  only  of  those  things  which  were  to  be  accom- 
plished by  the  sacraments  of  the  new  law."  (On  the  Sacraments.) 
Let  it  be  remembered  that  Rome  holds  that  the  sacraments  not  only 
confer  grace,  but  that  nothing  can  confer  it  without  them,  that  they 
are  necessary  to  salvation ;  and  the  statements  of  the  text  are  f ullj'  sus- 
tained and  justified. 
7 


80  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

diction  becomes  glaring.  First'.  Neither  the  term  or- 
ders nor  the  term  ordination  ^'  occurs  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. It  is  a  little  remarkable  that  a  sacrament  should 
have  been  instituted  without  a  name  and  without  a  re- 
cord. We  find  there  neither  name  nor  thing.  "  The 
word  ordination  is  of  all  ecclesiastical  terms  the  most 
purely  secular  in  derivation.  The  word  ordo,  from 
which  the  Latin  verb  ordinare  is  derived,  was  the  tech- 
nical term  for  the  senate  or  council  to  wdiich,  in  the 
colonies  and  municipal  towns  of  the  Roman  empire, 
the  administration  of  local  affairs  was  committed,  and 
the  members  of  which  were  called  Decurwnes.  The 
corl-elative,  therefore,  to  the  ordo  was  not  the  laity  as 
distinguished  from  the  priesthood,  but  i\\e  plebs  or  pri- 
vate citizens  as  distinguished  from  the  magistracy. 
And  in  fact,  the  word  ordinare  is  never  used  by  the 
classical  writers  to  signify  consecration  to  a  sacred  of- 
fice. From  the  state  it  passed  into  the  church,  whence 
the  frequent  use  in  the  early  Latin  fathers  of  the  word 
2)lehs,  to  denote  the  Christian  people  or  laity,  in  contrast 
with  the  clergy.  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  when 
first  introduced  its  ecclesiastical  corresponded  to  its 
civil  meaning,  and  that  to  be  ordained,  or  to  be  in- 
vested with  '  holy  orders,'  signified  merely  to  be  chosen 
a  member  of  the  governing  body  or  presbytery  in  a 

*  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  we  do  not  refer  to  the  English 
words  ordain  or  ordination,  or  to  the  idea  of  ordination  in  the  general 
sense  of  appointing,  constituting  {see  Titus  i.  5) ;  but  to  the  ceremony  of  set- 
ting apart  a  man  to  an  ofi&ce  or  a  work.  The  word  ordain  occurs  again  in 
Acts  xiv.  23  in  our  version,  but  there  the  Greek  is  diiferent,  yetjiorovelv^ 
a  verb  which  afterwards  became  a  technical  one  in  the  Greek 
church  to  exjDress  ordination.  But  in  the  only  other  place  where  it 
occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  2  Cor.  viii.  19,  it  is  rendered  by  our 
translators  "chosen."  Comp.  1  Cor.  xvi.  3;  and  this  is  a  meaning, 
and  apparently  the  chief  meaning,  assigned  to  it  by  Suidas,  Hesychius, 
and  Suicer.  See  Suicer's  Thesaurus  under  the  word.  No  doubt  it 
came  to  be  used  of  the  act  of  ordaining  because  the  election  of  officers 
preceded  their  ordination— election  and  ordination  constitutiog  vo- 
cation to  office.  So  in  the  same  way  yztfioOtaia  signified  blessing 
[znAoyia)  on  account  of  the  benediction  which  accompanied  the  lay- 
ing on  of  hands  in  certain  cases.     See  Suicer  suh  mrh. 


Apostolical  Succession.  81 

Christian  society ;  no  reference  being  intended  to  a 
specific  grade  of  religious  standing  supposed  to  be 
thereby  acquired.  To  transfer  the  notions  which  in 
later  times  became  connected  with  'ordination'  into 
the  apostolic  age,  or  the  sacred  narrative,  is  the 
ready  way  to  fall  into  serious  errors  of  scriptural 
interpretation."  ^ 

Second :  This  account  of  the  origin  of  the  word  falls 
in  with  the  view  of  ordination  as  given  in  the  New 
Testament.  In  every  free  commonwealth  citizens  are 
elevated  to  office  because  they  have,  or  are  supposed 
to  have,  a  larger  measure  of  the  endowments  which 
qualify  for  office  than  the  bod}^  of  their  fellow-citizens. 
They  are  not  elevated  to  a  caste  or  rank  because  they 
possess  gifts  which  have  been  altogether  denied  to  their 
fellow-citizens ;  nor  are  they  selected  out  of  the  mass 
as  persons  upon  whom  certain  gifts  are  to  he  conferred 
in  order  to  qualify  them  for  office. t  They  are  not  sub- 
jected to  a  manipulation  by  which  any  indelible  char- 
acter is  to  be  imprinted,  or  any  political  grace  im- 
parted. They  are  simply  put  into  office,  with  or  without 
solemn  ceremonies,  by  the  will  of  the  body  in  which 
all  political  power  resides,  and  to  which  all  the  politi- 
cal gifts  and  capacities  of  its  members  belong.  The 
power  resides  in  the  body  as  to  its  heing ;  in  the  offi- 
cers as  to  its  exei'cise.X     In  the  human  body  the  power 

*  See  Litton's  GhuTcli  of  Christ,  p.  567,  foot-note.  Similar  confusion 
and  error  have  resulted  from  the  like  use  of  the  terms  heresy  and 
schism^  the  scriptural  terms  differing  very  widely  in  signification  from 
the  ecclesiastical.  The  Church  of  Eome,  for  example,  has  been  re- 
markably free  from  the  ecclesiastical  sin  of  schism ;  no  community  has 
been  more  guilty  of  the  sin  of  schism  in  the  scri]Dtural  sense.  How 
fatal  has  been  the  force  and  imposture  of  wo7'ds/ 

t  Hence  Paul  lays  down  in  the  pastoral  epistles  (1  Tim.  iii.  and  Titus 
i. )  the  qualifications  (the  gifts;  which  are  to  guide  the  electors  and  the 
ordainers.  The  gifts,  therefore,  already  exist  before  the  ordination,  and 
of  course  cannot  be  imparted  by  ordination.  This  one  fact  is  fatal  to 
the  whole  theory  of  orders  as  held  by  papists — and  their  apists. 

X  This  distinction  was  expressed  in  the  schools  by  the  terms  in  primo 
acta,  or  quoad  esse,  and  in  actu  secundo,  or  quoad  operari. 


82  EccLESioLoaY. 

of  vision  may  be  said  to  belong,  as  to  its  heing,  to  the 
body,  but  as  to  its  actual  exercise,  to  the  eye.  The  body 
is  the  principiuni  quod,  the  eye  is  the  princtpimn  quo. 
The  body  sees,  bnt  sees  by  the  eye.  The  life  of  the 
body  is  in  every  part  and  organ^  and  the  life  of  the 
body  controls  the  life  in  every  part.  The  eye  sees 
by  the  life  of  the  body,  and  sees  under  the  control 
of  the  life  of  the  body,  and  for  the  good  of  the  body. 
The  eye  represents  the  body  quoad  seeing;  is  in,  not 
over,  the  body  for  that  purpose.  So  the  commonwealth 
makes  and  administers  the  laws  by  the  organs  insti- 
tuted for  that  purpose.  Its  life  is  in  the  legislature,  in 
the  judiciary,  in  the  executive,  for  the  discharge  of 
their  respective  functions.  The  civil  officers  in  these 
various  departments  are  hi  the  commonwealth,  not  over 
it ;  they  represent  the  commonwealth  quoad  these  vari- 
ous functions,  and  the  functions  being  performed  by 
the  life  of  the  commonwealth  are  performed  for  its  in- 
terests. Further,  in  every  such  commonwealth  there 
are  solemn  ceremonies  by  which  the  fact  of  such  re- 
presentation is  formally  recognized  and  published ; 
and  when  the  officer  ceases  to  hold  the  office  and  re- 
linquishes its  duties,  he  ceases  to  be  a  representative, 
and  falls  back  into  the  mass. 

Now,  this  is  an  exact  account  of  what  occurs  in  the 
church,  nmtato  nomine,  if  only  we  allow  for  the  differ- 
ence between  a  free  commonwealth  which  makes  a 
constitution  for  itself  and  a  free  commonwealth  which 
has  its  constitution  made  for  it  by  Christ.*  It  is  in 
substance  the  view  given  by  Paul  in  1  Cor.  xii.,  where 

*Tlie  difference  liere  signalized  maj"  be  made  plain  by  an  illustra- 
tion. The  constitution  of  a  free  commonwealth  is  "ordained"  and 
established  by  the  ^' sovereign  people'"  assembled  in  convention.  The 
election  of  persons  to  till  the  offices  created  and  defined  by  the  consti- 
tution belongs  to  the  pjeopjle  in  a  very  different  sense,  in  the  sense  of 
"constituents."  Hence  an  officer  holding  the  office  created  by  the 
constitution,  or  the  sovereign  people,  is  responsible  to  the  people  in 
this  sense,  and  not  in  the  sense  of  his  constituency.  The  old  doctrine, 
therefore,  of  "instructions"  was  inconsistent  with  the  very  nature  of 


Apostolical  Succession.  83 

his  avowed  object  is  to  state  the  relations  of  gifts  in 
the  church  to  the  offices  and  functions  discharged  in 
it.  He  presents  the  same  view  also  in  Rom.  xii.  The 
gifts  are  given  to  the  church  as  a  body;  the  life  is 
hers,  tlie  life  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  these  gifts  are  given 
to  be  manifested  and  exercised  for  the  profit  of  the 
whole  body.  The  movement  is  from  iv'itJiln  outwardly  ; 
the  organism  effloresces  in  apostles,  prophets,  evangel- 
ists, pastors,  teachers,  deacons,  etc.  Compare  Eph. 
iv.  4-16,  in  which  exquisite  description  of  the  gifts  and 
calling  of  the  church,  the  introduction  of  the  idea  of 
priestly  caste  would  be  felt  to  be  an  intolerable  imper- 
tinence.^ It  is  plain  that  the  gifts  and  offices  and  offi- 
cers are  all  given  to  the  church  by  her  glorious  Bride- 
groom; that  in  the  oider  of  nature,  and  even  of  time, 
she  exists  before  them.  She  is  the  end,  and  tlie}^  are 
the  means.     The  powers  of  teaching,  ruling,  distribut- 

a  representative,  as  Burke  told  the  electors  of  Bristol.  Now,  the  con- 
stitutiou  of  the  church  comes  in  no  sense  from  the  church.  There  is 
no  sovereignty  but  in  Christ  her  head.  He  ordains  and  establishes 
her  constitution ;  creates  her  offices ;  and  her  officers,  though  elected 
and  "ordained"  by  the  church,  are  not  responsible  to  those  who  elected 
them,  but  to  the  Head,  and  to  those  courts  which  he  has  appointed 
to  govern.  The  rulers  in  the  church  are  rulers  in  her,  not  over  her, 
as  Paul  hints  to  the  elders  at  Ephesus.  Acts  xx.  28 ;  in  the  Greek  iu 
c  w,  not  f'^.  The  eye  is  in  the  bodj^  for  seeing,  not  ove7'  it.  It  is  in 
a  hig^t  place,  much  higher  than  the  foot, 'but  still  it  is  in  the  body,  as 
the  foot  is,  and  both  eye  and  foot  have  identically  the  same  life.  In 
Rome,  the  priesthood  is  over  the  body,  and  has  a  life  of  its  own,  dif- 
ferent from  the  life  of  the  laity  (or  people  of  God),  as  the  life  of  a 
shepherd  is  different  from  the  life  of  the  sheep  whom  he  governs  and 
shears.  We  may  add,  that  it  follows  from  the  view  given  above,  that 
both  election  and  ordination,  while  they  express  the  judgment  of  the 
church,  express  the  judgment  of  the  church  that  Christ,  the  Head, 
has  called  the  persons  elected  and  ordained,  by  giving  them  the  gif-ts 
of  his  Spirit. 

*  "All  office-bearers,  and  especiall}^  all  such  as  are  ordinary  and  per- 
petual, are  given  by  Christ  to  his  church ;  and  the  church  is  not  in  any 
conceivable  sense  given  to  them.  The  personal  ministry  of  Christ  was 
surely  not  utterly  barren.  He  had  disciples  before  he  had  apostles ;  he 
had  many,  perhaps  multitudes  of  followers,  before  the  descent  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  had  fully  anointed  the  apostles  for  their  office  and  work ; 
and  we  are  told  that  after  his  resurrection,  and  before  his  ascent  into 


84  ECCLESIOLOGY 

ing,  are  her  powers ;  the  gifts  necessary  for  the  exercise 
of  these  powers  are  her  gifts ;  the  officers  through  Avhom 
she  exercises  them  are  her  officers;  they  are  her  eyes 
and  ears  and  hands  and  feet.  The  life  is  the  same  in 
all :  there  is  one  spirit  as  well  as  one  hody.  There  is 
no  room  here  for  the  distinction  of  clergy  and  laity  (if 
those  terms  mean  nothing  more  than  the  distinction 
between  office-bearers  and  private  members) ;  every 
laic  is  a  clergyman,  because  he  belongs  to  the  inherit- 
ance of  God;  and  every  clergyman  is  a  laic,  because 
he  belongs  to  the  people  of  God.  The  simple  state- 
ment of  Paul  is  an  overwhelming  refutation  of  the  pu- 
trid figment  of  sacerdotal  orders  and  sacerdotal  grace. 
The  officers  of  the  church  are  simply  her  representa- 
tives and  organs  quoad  teaching,  ruling,  distributing, 
etc.;  and  "ordination"  is  simply  a  solemn  ceremony 
by   which  the   fact  is  recognized   and    authenticated. 

lieaven,  He  was  seen  of  above  tive  hundred  brethren  at  once.  1 
Cor.  XV.  6.  And  of  the  vast  crowds  that  followed  him,  and  gladly 
heard  him  who  spake  as  never  man  spake,  who  shall  presume  to  say 
that  multitudes  did  not  believe  on  him  ?  To  those  already  united  witli 
him  h^  faith,  and  to  his  elect  throughout  the  earth  and  throughout  all 
generations,  he  gave,  after  he  had  singly  triumphed  over  death  and 
hell,  the  inestimable  gift  of  a  living  and  permanent  ministr3\  But  he 
had  a  church  in  the  world  before  there  was  either  apostle,  or  prophet, 
or  evangelist,  or  pastor,  or  tercher;  and  he  will  have  a  church  around 
him  throughout  eternal  ages,  after  all  his  saints  are  gathered  and  per- 
fected, and  whose  oracles,  ordinances,  and  ministry  shall  all  have  ful- 
filled their  work  His  bride  was  equally  his  undefiled,  his  only  one. 
before  any  ordinance  was  established,  or  any  oracle  given,  or  any 
ministry  constituted,  as  she  is  now  that  we  enjoy  all  these  proofs  of 
his  care  and  love ;  and  if  there  had  never  been  an  office-bearer  of  the 
race  of  Adam  given  as  a  servant  to  minister  unto  her—  if  angels  had 
been  her  only  ministers  forever,  or  the  divine  Spirit  had  disdained  cdl 
secondary  agencies,  or  were  now  to  reject  the  whole  body  of  sinful 
men,  who  are  nothing  but  as  he  enables  them — still  that  spotless  bride 
would  be  the  Lamb's  wife  by  a  covenant  reaching  from  the  depths  of 
eternity,  steadfast  as  the  oath  of  God  can  make  it,  and  sacred  by  the 
bio  )d  of  Jesus  with  which  it  is  sealed.  No,  no;  there  is  no  lordship, 
no  headship  in  Christ's  church  but  that  of  Christ  himself ;  there  are 
but  servants  in  the  church  for  Christ's  sake ;  and  their  Master's  rule 
is  this :  '  Whosoever  will  be  chief  among  you,  let  him  be  your  servant ; 
he  that  is  greatest  among  you  shall  be  your  servant.'  " — R.  J.  Breck- 
eiiridgc's  Sermon  on  E%tli.  iv.  8. 


Apostolical  Succession.  85 

Here  is  no  grace  transmitted  from  man  to  man  in  a 
line  of  priests  ove7'  the  church  and  ahove  it;  the  propa- 
gation of  a  life  separate  and  independent  from  that  of 
the  laity;  but  the  very  same  grace,  gifts,  and  life  in 
the  officers  and  in  the  body.^ 

As  Christ  is  the  head  of  the  church,  is  the  author  of 
its  constitution,  and  rules  in  it  by  his  Spirit,  no  mem- 
ber of  the  church  can  be  made  an  officer  except  by  a 
call  from  him,  any  more  than  that  member  could  be  a 
member  except  by  his  calling.  It  is  Christ  who  con- 
fers the  gifts  which  qualify  for  office,  and  this  is  done 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  who  dwells  in  the  whole  church. 
It  is  Christ  who  creates  the  office  and  defines  its  func- 
tions and  prescribes  the  qualifications  for  it.  And  yet, 
according  to  the  will  of  the  same  Lord  and  Head,  the 
call  to  be  an  officer  is  not  complete  without  the  action 
of  the  church,  any  more  than  the  call  to  be  a  member 
is  complete  without  the  action  of  the  church.  Hence 
vocation  is  both  inward  and  outward ;  and  the  outward 
consists  of  election  t  and  ordination.     Election  is  the 


*  Since  writing  the  above  I  have  met  with  a  passage  in  F.  W.  Krum- 
macher's  autobiography  (pages  159-168;  which  expresses  the  above 
views.     See  particnlarb'  pages  IGi-'S. 

fThat  the  people  in  the  ancient  chiirch  had  the  right  of  electing 
their  bishops  is  so  notorious  that  we  are  not  aware  of  its  being  seriously 
denied  by  any  respectable  writer.  Hooker  {Gh.  Polity,  B.  7,  c.  14)^ 
after  conceding  the  fact,  goes  on  to  vindicate  the  Church  of  England 
in  denying  this  right  to  her  j)eople,  upon  the  ground  that  changes  of 
this  sort  must  occur  in  the  social  development  of  a  people,  and  appeals 
to  the  ciml  Imtory  of  Ronu\  and  the  changes  that  took  place  first  in  the 
republic  and  afterwards  in  the  empire!.  What  is  this  but  virtually 
asserting  that  the  church  is  a  natural  institution  like  the  state,  and 
that  its  life  is  merely  natural  ?  Such  a  doctrine  is  natural  in  the  min- 
ister of  a  church  which  was  created  by  the  state  and  is  governed  by  it ; 
but  will  be  rejected  with  horror  by  every  one  who  believes  that  Christ 
is  the  only  King  in  his  church,  and  that  her  constitution  comes  from 
him.  The  truth  is,  the  dogma  of  apostolical  succession  is  utterly  in- 
compatible with  any  election  of  ministers  by  the  people ;  and  one  or 
the  other  must  be  abandoned.  If  anybody  doubts  that  bishops  were 
elected  by  the  suffrages  of  the  people  in  the  ancient  church,  he  may 
have  his  doubts  fully  removed  by  consulting  Suicer's  Thesaurus  Ecde- 
siasticus,  under  the  words  ^ E-ld/.or.o'^^  yetportrAu)^  and  yj'.ponrAa. 
Down  to  the  time  of  Nicolaus  II. ,  who  was  made  pontiff  in  1058,  the 


86  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

act  of  the  body ;  ordination  the  act  of  the  rulers  already 
existing,  who  have  themselves  been  chosen  in  like 
manner;  but  both  election  and  ordination  are  acts  of 
the  church,  making  the  j^erson  chosen  and  ordained 
her  representative  or  organ  as  to  the  particular  func- 
tions to  be  performed.  Election  and  ordination  are 
therefore  simply  modes  in  which  the  divine  calling  is 
manifested  and  ascertained.  The  Spirit  of  Christ 
dwells  in  the  man  called,  in  the  congregation  electing, 
in  the  court  ordaining;  and  when  the  presence  and 
working  of  the  Spirit  is  manifested  in  all  these  modes, 
the  calling  is  as  complete,  and  as  completely  authenti- 
cated as  the  present  imperfect  condition  of  the  church 
will  allow.  Ordination  imparts  no  authority,  it  only 
recognizes  and  authenticates  it.  The  solemn  ceremo- 
nies used  in  the  inauguration  of  a  president  of  the 
United  States  do  not  make  him  president  (that  has 
been  already  done),  but  only  recognize  and  authenti- 
cate the  fact.  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  oath  of 
office  should  be  administered  by  the  outgoing  presi- 
dent (upon  the  principle  of  like  begetting  like) ;  it  is 
sufficient  that  it  be  administered  by  an  accredited 
organ  and  representative  of  the  commonwealth. 

If  this  be  a  just  view  of  the  nature  of  ordination,  it 
follows  that  ordination  is  not  unreiterable.  The  occa- 
sions for  a  reiteration  of  the  ceremony  ma}^  be,  and 
commonly  will  be,  very  rare,  but  there  is  nothing  in 
the  nature  of  the  thing  to  hinder  its  being  reiterated. 
Paul  and  Barnabas  were  separated  for  the  special  work 

people  of  Rome  still  took  part  in  electing  the  bishop  of  Rome.  Nico- 
lans  ordered  that  the  cardinal  bishops  and  the  cardinal  presbyters 
should  elect  the  pontiff ;  yet  without  infringing  the  estabhshed  rights 
of  the  Roman  [German]  emperors  in  this  business.  At  the  same  time 
he  did  not  exclude  the  rest  of  the  clergy,  nor  the  citizens  and  people 
from  all  part  in  the  election;  for  he  required  that  the  assent  of  all 
these  should  be  asked  and  obtained.  It  was  not  until  the  reign  of 
Alexander  III.,  more  than  a  century  afterwards,  that  the  election  of 
the  pope  was  given  exclusively  to  the  college  of  cardinals.  MosJieim, 
Vol  II.  p  233.  So  long  did  this  relic  of  the  primitive  doctrine  linger 
after  the  ministry  had  been  converted  into  a  priesthood ! 


Apostolical  Succession.  87 

to  which  the  Holy  Ghost  had  called  them,  by  prayer 
and  fasting,  and  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
Presbytery  at  Antioch.  And  yet  Barnabas  had  been  a 
distinguished  teacher  before  in  that  very  church,  and 
Saul  had  been  made  "a  chosen  vessel  to  bear  the 
name  of  Christ  before  kings,  and  the  Gentiles,  and  the 
people  of  Israel,"  some  time,  according  to  some  chro- 
nologers  many  years,  before.  If  it  be  said  that  this 
was  not  a  case  of  "  ordination,"  of  setting  apart  to  an 
office,  but  only  of  setting  apart  to  a  special  work  ;  we 
answer,  show  us  an  instance  of  any  separation  to  an 
office  as  contradistinguished  from  a  work  in  the  New 
Testament.  If  John  xx.  22,  23,  be  adduced  as  an  in- 
stance, we  answer  that  this  was  an  ordination  by  the 
Lord  himself,  and  not  by  the  church.  It  is  true  that 
Rome  directs  the  bishop  in  the  consecration  of  a  priest 
to  say,  "Receive  the  Holy  Ghost;"  and  the  Episcopal 
church  imitates  Rome  in  one  of  its  forms  in  the  "  or- 
daining of  priests"  (at  the  same  time  mercifully  pro- 
posing another  form  for  men  whose  consciences  are  too 
tender  to  allow  them  to  use  the  first) ;  but  this  is  done 
without  any  warrant  from  Christ,  and,  as  it  appears 
to  us,  is  near  akin  to  blasphemy.  We  hold  that  the 
ordination  of  the  apostles  was  extraordinary,  as  their 
office  was  extraordinary ;  and  yet  here  is  a  case  of  the 
greatest  of  all  the  apostles  having  the  hands  of  the  or- 
dinary teachers  in  Antioch  laid  upon  him.  He  takes 
his  place  along  with  Barnabas,  Stephen  the  deacon, 
Timothy  the  evangelist  or  bishop,  or  legate  a  latere, 
or  whatever  he  was  ;  Barnabas  the  teacher ;  Saul  the 
apostle  ;  all  alike  had  hands  laid  on  them,  and  were 
commended  to  the  Lord  for  the  v:joTh  which  he  had 
for  them  to  do.  And  if  any  of  these  illustrious  men 
had  quit  their  work  and  gone  to  money-making,  and 
then  returned  to  their  work  again,  there  could  be  no 
good  reason  why  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery  should 
not  have  been  laid  upon  tliem  again.  Or  if  Timothy 
had  become  a  pastor  of  a  congregation,  there  was  no 


88  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

reason  why  he  should  not  have  been  commended  to  the 
Lord  to  that  new  work,  by  prayer,  fasting,  and  the  im- 
position of  hands.  These  things  constitute  the  cere- 
monies of  ordination ;  and  Saul  and  Barnabas,  who  had 
been  preaching  for  years,  had  these  things  done  to 
them.  Call  it  ordination  or  anything  you  please,  it  was 
a  solemn  act  of  obedience  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  recogniz- 
ing his  sovereign  will  in  the  choice  of  these  men  for  a 
particular  ecclesiastical  work  of  preaching  and  ruling. 
And  if  there  be  anything  more  in  "  ordination"  than 
this,  we  have  been  unable  to  find  it. 

Again,  according  to  Eome,  the  bishop  alone  has  the 
power  to  communicate  this  mysterious  sacerdotal  grace 
in  orders.  Now  the  New  Testament  knows  nothing  of 
the  bishop  as  different  in  rank  or  order  from  the  pres- 
byter or  priest.  The  papal  bishop  is  a  pure  invention 
of  man  or— the  devil.  The  sacrament  of  orders  there- 
fore falls  to  the  ground,  being  founded  on  the  bishop. 

Once  more.  There  is  no  instance  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  which  the  act  of  ordaining  was  performed  by 
one  man.  The  college  of  apostles  ordained  the  dea- 
cons ;  the  prophets  and  teachers  laid  hands  on  Bar- 
nabas and  Saul;  the  Presbytery  laid  hands  on  Timo- 
thy. No  doubt  the  apostles  and  evangelists  did  some- 
times appoint  or  ordain  elders,  acting  singly,  when 
there  was  no  existing  presbytery  to  do  the  act.  But 
the  record  makes  it  very  clear  that  they  preferred  the 
other  method  where  it  was  practicable ;  just  as  in 
other  acts  of  government,  the  apostles,  though  compe- 
tent to  act  each  one  by  himself,  preferred,  when  prac- 
ticable, to  act  jointly,  or  as  an  assembly.  They  did 
this,  no  doubt,  to  indicate  the  mode  in  which  Christ 
would  have  his  church  to  be  governed  in  all  time,  "by 
the  common  counsel  of  the  presbyters,"  to  use  Jerome's 
expression. 

The  papists  sometimes  condescend  to  quote  the 
Scriptures  in  proof  of  their  peculiar  doctrines.  Their 
quotations    generally    have    as    little    to    do    in    fact 


Apostolical  Succession.  89 

with  their  doctrines  as  the  passage  cited  by  a  simple 
monk  in  proof  of  the  scripturalness  of  the  two  orders 
of  clergy,  the  regular  and  the  secular, — "the  oxen  were 
ploughing  and  the  asses  feeding  beside  them."  But 
they  find  a  passage  (2  Tim.  i.  6)  which  looks  as  if  it 
might  support  their  doctrine  of  ordination ;  for  here 
is  ordination  by  one  man,  and  the  imparting  of  a  gift 
by  the  imposition  of  his  hands.  Upon  this  passage 
we  observe,  (a),  That  if  this  was  a  case  of  ordination, 
then  it  was  either  the  same  with  that  mentioned  in  1 
Tim.  iv.  14,  or  a  different  one.  If  it  wgis  a  differe)it 
case,  then  Timothy  was  ordained  at  least  tioiee ;  and 
what  becomes  of  the  indelible  character,  and  the  doc- 
trine of  the  unreiterability  of  ordination  ?  If  it  was 
the  sa')ne  case,  then  what  becomes  of  ordination  by 
bishops  alone  (for  the  ordination  here  was  by  presby- 
ters)? Or  if  the  Presbytery  consisted  of  prelates, 
what  becomes  of  the  plenary  authority  of  the  apostle- 
Paul?  Was  not  his  ordination  sufficient  to  make 
Timothy  a  presbyter,. or  an  evangelist,  or  even  a  pre- 
latical  bishop  ?  If  it  is  said  that  Paul  condescended 
to  be  a  bishop  for  the  nonce  ;  we  answer  that  he  might 
have  condescended  still  further  (as  his  brother  Peter 
did,  1  Pet.  V.  1),  to  be  a  fellow-presbyter  with  his 
brethren,  and  act  for  and  with  them  in  the  presbytery 
in  laying  hands  on  Timothy.  This,  we  have  little 
doubt,  is  what  actually  occurred.  (/>),  The  gift  that 
Timothy  received  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
Paul  and  the  presbyter}^  was  the  gift  described  by  Paul 
in  Eph.  iii.  7,  8,  as  having  been  given  to  himself  (per- 
haps by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  layman 
Ananias,  Acts  ix.  17-20).  That  it  was  no  indelible 
character  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  Timothy  is  ex- 
horted to  "  stir  it  up  "  ;  Paul  uses  a  word  which  implies 
that  the  gift  had  descended  like  fire  from  heaven ;  but 
that  it  was  to  be  kept  from  going  out,  and  to  be  in- 
creased by  Timothy's  care.  It  was  a  gift  which  mani- 
fested itself  in  "reading,  exhortation,  teaching"   (see 


90  EcCLESIOLOGY. 

1  Tim.  iv.  13) ;  was  capable  of  being  improved  by 
these  exercises,  as  well  as  by  the  "  meditation  "  which 
was  needful  to  perform  them  (vs.  15) ;  and  a  gift  in 
which  "  his  profiting  might  appear  nnto  all."  None  of 
these  things  can  be  affirmed  of  the  sacerdotal  grace  of 
the  papist.  It  exists  alike  in  the  laziest  and  most  dil- 
igent, in  the  vilest  and  the  purest,  in  a  Leo  the  Great 
and  a  Leo  the  Tenth.  Whatever,  therefore,  this  mys- 
tic grace  may  be,  it  is  certainly  a  different  thing  from 
Paul's  gift,  or  Timothy's.  The  "  character "  in  Paul 
or  Timothy  would  certainly  have  been  "deleted"  by  a 
tenth  or  hundredth  part  of  the  wickedness  which  failed 
to  delete  it  in  John  XXII. ,  or  Alexander  YI. 

Having  thus  said  what  we  proposed  to  say  upon  the 
papal  doctrine  of  succession  in  the  light  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, we  proceed  to  consider  it  in  the  light  of  history 
and  of  the  conditions  of  the  doctrine  itself.  These 
two  views  of  the  subject  we  combine,  as  the  history 
will  show  that  the  doctrine  as  stated  by  the  papists 
cuts  its  own  throat,  and  if  that  we  are  to  believe  it,  we 
must  first  abnegate  our  own  reason.  There  is  good 
reason  why  these  people  do  not  like  an  appeal  to 
reason.  We  are  very  apt  to  be  against  that  which  we 
feel  to  be  against  us. 

1.  There  is  no  such  doctrine  of  succession  as  that 
of  the  Trent  Council  to  be  found  in  the  first  three  cen- 
turies of  the  Church :  we  mean  a  doctrine  involving  a 
priesthood  perpetuated  by  a  process  independent  of 
the  Christian  people.  Even  the  high-churchman 
Cjprian,  in  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  whose  ex-- 
travagant  language  concerning  the  priesthood  and  the 
episcopate,  prelatists  quote  much  oftener  and  with 
vastly  more  relish  than  they  ever  quote  Peter  or  Paul, 
did  not  venture  to  deny  the  right  of  the  people  to  have 
something  to  say  in  the  creation  of  bishops  and  priests. 
The  succession  of  the  early  fathers  was  a  succession  of 
doctrine,  not  of  persons,"^  except  so  far  as  persons  were 

*  See  Gerhard's  Loc.   Theology,   Loc.   23,   Chap.  XL  Sec.  5,  cxcii., 


Apostolical  Succession.  91 

involved  in  the  doctrinal  succession.  They  seem  to 
have  been  led  to  assert  sncli  a  succession  by  a  claim 
of  this  sort  made  by  the  heretics,  who,  finding  the 
writings  of  the  apostles  against  them,  pretended  to 
have  a  tradition  of  the  apostles  in  their  favor.  Thus 
TertuUian,  in  his  book  De  2yrce8cr'qjt(0}iihuii  adversus 
hcereticos,  urges  the  true  succession  against  the  false.'" 
*'  Let  them  parade  the  origins  of  their  churches,  let  them 
unroll  the  series  of  their  bishops,  so  coming  down  by 
succession  from  the  beginning,  that  the  first  bisiiop  had 
some  one  of  the  apostles,  or  a  disciple  of  the  apostles, 
as  his  ordainer  and  predecessor.  Let  the  heretics  in- 
vent a  figment  of  this  sort,  yet  it  will  profit  them  no- 
thing ;  for  their  very  doctrine  will  convict  them,  when 
compared  with  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles,  by  its  di- 
versity and  contrariety;  for  as  the  apostles  did  not 
teach  contrary  to  one  another,  so  apostolic  men  would 
not  have  taught  contrary  to  the  apostles."  Tertullian's 
idea  of  the  succession  was  not  at  all  that  of  a  priest- 
hood whose  function  it  w^as  to  offer  sacrifice  and  pro- 
nounce authoritative  absolution ;  but  the  succession  of 
men  in  certain  churcJies  which,  having  been  founded 
by  the  apostles  or  by  their  disciples,  were  called 
"sedes  apostolicae,"  or  sees  of  the  apostles,  and  were 
supposed  to  have  a  prescriptive  right  to  say  what  the 
apostolical  teaching  really  was. 

This  was  indeed  a  very  unsafe  rule.  It  was  not  the 
rule  given  in  the  Scriptures.  Tlie  spirits  ought  to  have 
been  tried  by  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  his  word, 
and  specially  by  the  great  fundamental  doctrines  of  the 
word,  as  prescribed  by  John  in  his  First  Epistle,  chap, 
iv. ;  but  this  rule  was  not  deemed  sufficiently  easy,  and 
yet  it  seems  easy  enough.  "  Who>soever  transgresseth, 
and  abideth  not  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  hath  no  God. 
If  there  come  any  unto  you,  and  hring  not  this  doctrine, 

Vol.  XI.  p.  297,  ff.  Note  particularly  the  quotations  from  the  Fathers 
in  cxciii.  and  ff. 

*  TertuUian,  deprees.  adv.  haeretic.  apud.  Turretin,  L.  18,  Q.  13. 
8 


92  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

receive  liim  not  into  your  bouse,  neither  bid  him  God- 
speed." (2  John  ix.  10.)  But  men  were  wiser  than 
God,  and  in  order  to  extinguish  heresy  and  prevent 
schism,  invented  the  CathoHc  doctrine  and  made  com- 
munion with  the  bishop  the  mark  of  orthodoxy.  But 
in  the  whole  business  the  truth  was  the  thing  aimed 
at,  not  sacramental  grace  or  sacramental  salvation. 
They  inverted  the  proper  order,  and  instead  of  judging 
the  man  or  the  church  by  the  faith,  they  judged  the 
faith  by  the  man  or  the  church.  The  results  of  this 
inversion  have  been  deplorable;  but  these  ancient 
worthies  ought  to  be  acquitted  of  the  sin  and  silliness 
involved  in  the  modern  doctrine  of  the  succession. 

That  this  view  of  the  position  of  the  ancient  church 
is  the  true  one,  is  evident  from  the  Donatist  contro- 
versy. It  is  well  known  that  there  was  no  difference  be- 
tween the  Donatists  and  "  the  church,"  either  in  faith 
or  order.  Both  were  orthodox  ;  both  were  episcopal. 
There  was  no  question  made  hy  the  church,  whether 
the  Donatist  communion  was  a  church,  a  part  of  the 
church  visible  on  earth.  Members  coming  to  the  church 
from  the  Donatists  were  not  re-baptized;  biit  more 
than  this,  ministers  coming  from  them  to  the  church 
were  not  reordained.  Not  only  was  this  the  case  in  the 
early  stages  of  the  great  controversy,  but  even  as  late 
as  the  conference  at  Carthage,  just  one  century  from 
the  death  of  Mensurius,  which  was  the  original  occa- 
sion of  the  strife,  the  Catholics  offered  to  acknowledge 
the  bishops  of  the  Donatists.  Even  the  Synod  of  Eome 
offered  to  hold  communion  with  them.^^     The  Catholic 


*  See  these  positions  fully  established  by  Claude  in  his  Defence  of 
the  Reformation,  p.  3,  chap.  4.  Chillingworth  takes  the  same  view  of 
this  controversy.  He  quotes  from  an  epistle  of  Augustine  these  words : 
"  You  (the  Donatists)  are  with  us  in  baptism,  in  the  creed,  and  the 
other  sacraments" ;  and  again:  ''Thou  hast  proved  to  me  that  thou 
hast  faith  ;  prove  to  me  likewise  that  thou  hast  charity."  Parallel  to 
which  words  are  those  of  Optatus  :  "Amongst  us  and  you  is  one  ec- 
clesiastical conversation,  common  lessons,  the  same  faith,  thB  same 
sacraments. "    Where,  by  the  way,  we  may  observe,  that  in  the  judg- 


Apostolical  Succession.  93 

Church  in  fact  stood  on  the  defensive  in  this  whole  war, 


as  any  man  can  see  by  simply  glancing  over  the  writ- 
ings of  Augustine  against  the  Donatists  /  it  was  simply 
defending  its  own  right  to  be  a  church  against  a  nar- 
row-minded and  fanatical  sect  which  claimed  to  be  the 
only  church  in  the  world  ;  it  was  occupying  exactly  the 
position  in  reference  to  the  Donatists  which  ice  now  oc- 
cupy towards  Rome  and  its  imitators.  The  Catholics 
of  that  day  had  sense  and  charity  enough  not  to  follow 
the  example  of  the  Donatists,  and  unchurch  all  other 
communions  but  their  own.  It  is  very  evident  that  they 
did  not  have,  or  did  not  know  that  they  had,  the  apos- 
tolical succession.  Otherwise,  the  argument  would 
have  been  short,  sharp  and  decisive.  In  that  case  the 
church  which  had  defied  the  power  of  the  Roman  em- 
perors for  three  hundred  years,  might  have  been  saved 
the  disgrace  of  invoking  the  authority  of  the  emperors  to 
decide  the  controversy  by  arbitration  and  by  the  sword. 

ment  of  these  fathers,  even  Donatists,  though  heretics  and  schismat- 
ics, gave  true  ordination,  the  true  sacrament  of  matrimony,  the  sacra- 
mental absolution,  confirmation,  the  true  sacrament  of  the  eucharist, 
true  extreme  unction  ;  or  else  (choose  yen  whether)  some  of  these  were 
not  then  esteemed  sacraments.  But  for  ordination,  whether  he 
(Augustine)  held  it  a  sacrament  or  no,  certainly  he  held  that  it  re- 
mained with  them  entire  ;  for  so  he  says  in  express  terms  in  his  book 
against  Parmenianus's  Epistle.  Which  doctrine,  if  you  can  reconcile 
with  the  present  doctrine  of  the  Eoman  church,  eris  mihi  magnus 
Apollo."     (Ghillingworth's  Works,  p.  506,  507of  Phila.  Ed.,  1840.) 

The  learned  Witsius  (De  Schism.  Donatistarum,  Chap.  7)  says  that  he 
had  read,  "nonsine  magno  tcedio,'"  the  Breviculwn  of  Augustine  and 
the  Acts  of  the  Conference  of  Carthage  (A.  D.  411),  and  gives  this  as 
the  main  question  disputed  between  the  two  hundred  and  eighty-six 
Catholic  bishops  and  the  two  hundred  and  seventy-nine  Donatist 
bishops  assembled  at  the  conference  (held,  be  it  remembered,  a 
century  after  the  breaking  out  of  the  schism),  viz.:  "Whether  the 
church  which  held  communion  with  C^ecilian,  the  Traditor,  had 
not  thereby  lost  the  dignity  and  privileges  of  a  church  ?  The  contro- 
versy, therefore,  was  two-fold  :  1,  First,  of  fact  ;  whether  C.  was  a 
traditor,  and  on  that  account  unworthy  of  the  episcopate  ?  2,  Second, 
of  late  ;  whether  a  church  is  so  vitiated  by  an  admixture  of  the  wicked, 
as  to  cease  to  be  a  church?"  This  is  a  very  different  question  from 
that  which  would  have  been  discussed,  if  they  had  been  disputing 
about  the  succession.  It  was  indeed  the  same  question  which  was  af- 
terwards debated  between  the  Anabaptists  and  their  antagonists,  both 
Romanist  and  Protestant. 


94  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

2.  The  papists  are.  in  the  habit  of  imposing  upon 
people,  by  saying  that  the  salvation  of  Protestants,  like 
their  faith,  rests  upon  fallible  and  uncertain  grounds, 
and  that  certainty  can  be  found  only  within  their 
pale.  Now,  not  to  say  that  this  assertion  comes  with  a 
bad  grace  from  a  community  which  teaches  in  its  creed 
that  no  man  can  be  certain  of  his  salvation  in  this  life ; 
it  has  been  shown,  over  and  over  again,  that  their  own 
doctrine  of  the  priesthood  and  the  sacraments  makes  it 
impossible  for  an}^  man  to  know  that  he  has  ever  been 
truly  absolved  from  his  sins  ;  and  this  because  of  the 
uncertainty  of  the  succession  as  a  fact.  That  the  sac- 
rament of  penance  has  ever  been  duly  administered  to 
him,  depends  upon  the  minister's  being  a  true  priest. 
"  That  such  or  such  man  is  a  priest,"  says  Chillingworth, 
"  not  himself,  much  less  uny  other,  can  have  any  possi- 
ble certainty ;  for  it  depends  upon  a  great  many  con- 
tingent and  uncertain  supposals.  He  that  will  pretend 
to  be  certain  of  it,  must  undertake  to  know  for  certain 
all  these  things  that  follow : 

'^  I^rrst,  that  he  was  baptized  with  due  matter. 
Secondly^  with  the  due  form  of  words,  which  he  can- 
not know,  unless  he  were  both  present  and  attentive. 
Thirdly,  he  must  know  that  he  was  baptized  with  due 
intention,"  and  that  is,  that  the  minister  of  his  baptism 
was  not  a  secret  Jew,  nor  a  Moor,  nor  an  atheist  (of  all 
which  kinds,  I  fear,  experience  gives  you  a  just  cause 
to  fear  that  Italy  and  Spain  have  priests  not  a  few), 
but  a  Christian,  in  heart  as  well  as  profession  (other- 
wise, believingthe  sacrament  to  be  nothing,  in  giving 
it  he  could  intend  to  give  nothing),  nor  a  Samosatanian, 
nor  an  Arian,  but  one  that  w^as  capable  of  having  due 
intention,  from  which  they  that  believe  not  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  are  excluded  by  you.  And  lastly, 
that  he  was  neither  drunk  nor  distracted  at  the  admin- 
istration   of  the  sacrajnent,  nor,  out  of  negligence  or 

*  See  tlie  speech  in  the  Council  of  Trent,  of  Catharine,  bishop  of  Mi- 
nori,  in  F.  Paolo's  Hist.  (Courayer's  French  Trans. ),  Vol.  I.  pp.  441-'2. 


Apostolical  Succession.  95 

malice,  omitted  liis  intention.  Fourthly,  lie  must  un- 
dertake to  know  that  the  bishop  which  ordained  him 
priest  ordained  him  completely,  with  due  matter,  form, 
and  intention ;  and,  consequently,  that  he  again  was 
neither  Jew,  Moor,  nor  atheist,  nor  liable  to  any  such 
exception  as  is  inconsistent  with  due  intention  of  giving 
the  sacrament  of  orders.  Fifthly,  he  must  undertake  to 
know  that  the  bishop  which  made  him  priest  was  a 
priest  himself  ;  for  your  rule  is  nihil  d<d  quod  noii 
hahet  ;  and,  consequently,  that  there  were  again  none  of 
the  former  nullities  in  his  baptism,  which  might  make 
him  incapable  of  ordination,  nor  any  invalidity  in  his 
ordination,  but  a  true  priest,  to  ordain  him  again,  the 
requisite  matter  and  form  and  due  intention  all  con- 
curring. Lastly,  he  must  pretend  to  know  the  same  of 
him  that  made  him  priest,  and  him  that  made  him 
priest  even  until  he  comes  to  the  very  fountain  of 
priesthood.  For,  take  any  one  in  the  Avhole  train  and 
succession  of  ordainers,  and  suppose  him,  by  reason 
of  any  defect,  only  a  supposed  and  not  a  true  priest, 
then,  according  to  your  doctrine,  he  could  not  give  a 
true,  but  only  a  supposed  priesthood ;  and  they  that  re- 
ceive it  of  him,  and  again  they  that  derive  it  from 
them,  can  give  no  better  than  they  received ;  receiving 
nothing  but  a  name  and  shadow,  can  give  nothing  but 
a  name  and  shadow  ;  and  so  from  age  to  age,  from  gen- 
eration to  generation,  being  equivocal  fathers  beget 
only  equivocal  sons;  no  principle  in  geometry  being 
more  certain  than  this,  that  the  unsuppliable  defect  of 
any  necessary  antecedent,  must  needs  cause  a  nullity 
of  all  those  consequences  which  depend  upon  it.  In 
fine,  to  know  this  one  thing,  you  must  first  know  ten 
thousand  others,  whereof  not  any  one  is  a  thing  that 
can  be  known,  there  being  no  necessity  that  it  should 
be  true,  which  necessity  alone  can  qualify  any  thing  to 
be  an  object  of  science,  but  only,  at  the  best,  a  high 
degree  of  probability  that  it  is  so.  But  then,  that  of 
ten  thousand  probables  no  one  should  be  false ;  that 


96  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

of  ten  thousand  requisites,  whereof  any  one  may  fail, 
not  one  should  be  wanting ;  this  to  me  is  extremely  im- 
probable, and  even  cousin-german  to  impossible.  So 
that  the  assurance  hereof  is  like  a  machine  composed 
of  an  innumerable  multitude, of  pieces,  of  which  it  is 
strangely  unlikely,  but  some  will  be  out  of  order,  and 
yet  if  any  one  be  so,  the  whole  fabric  of  necessity  falls 
to  the  ground ;  and  he  that  shall  put  them  together, 
and  maturely  consider  all  the  possible  ways  of  lapsing 
and  nullifying  a  priesthood  in  the  church  of  Rome,  I 
believe  will  be  very  inclinable  to  think,  that  it  is  a  hun- 
dred to  one,  that  amongst  a  hundred  seeming  priests, 
there  is  not  one  true  one — nay,  that  it  is  not  a  thing 
very  improbable,  that  amongst  those  many  millions 
which  make  up  the  Roman  hierarchy,  there  are  not 
twenty  true."  (ChillingwortJi  s  Woi'k^,  p.  130-'2;  Hook- 
er, Phila.,  1840.) 

"Whether,"  says  Macaulay  in  his  review  of  Glad- 
stone's ''Church  and  State'"  {Mhcellanies,  Yol.  III.  p. 
300),  "a  clergyman  be  reallj^  a  successor  of  the  apos- 
tles depends  on  an  immense  number  of  such  contin- 
gencies as  these:  Whether  under  King  Ethelwolf,  a 
stupid  priest  might  not,  while  baptizing  several  scores 
of  Danish  prisoners,  who  had  just  made  their  option  be- 
tween the  font  and  the  gallows,  inadvertently  omit  to  per- 
form the  rite  on  one  of  these  graceless  proselytes? — 
whether,  in  the  seventh  century,  an  impostor,  who  had 
never  received  consecration,  might  not  have  passed  him- 
self off  as  a  bishop  on  a  rude  tribe  of  Scots  ? — whether 
a  lad  of  twelve  did  reall}^,  by  a  ceremony  huddled  over 
Avhen  he  was  too  drunk  to  know  what  he  was  about, 
convey  the  episcopal  character  to  a  lad  of  ten?" 

Mr.  Gladstone  proposes  to  remove  doubts  which 
may  arise  from  the  historic  difficulties  against  the  doc- 
trine of  succession,  by  nothing  else  than  mathematical 
evidence.  "By  a  novel  application  of  the  theory  of 
ratios  and  proportion,  he  endeavors  to  show  that,  on 
the  least  favorable  computation,  the  chances  for  the 


Apostolical  Succession.  97 

true  consecration  of  any  bishop  are  8,000  to  1.  .  .  . 
Be  it  so  ;  this  only  diminishes  the  probability  that,  in 
any  given  case,  the  suspicion  of  invalidity  is  un- 
founded. What  is  wanted  is  a  criterion  which  shall 
distinguish  the  genuine  orders  from  the  i-purious.  Alas ! 
who  knows  but  he  may  be  the  unhappy  eighth-thou- 
sandth ?  According  to  this  theory,  no  man  in  the 
Roman  or  Anglican  communion  has  a  right  to  say  that 
he  is  commissioned  to  preach  the  gospel,  but  only 
that  he  has  seven  thousand  nine  hundred  and  ninety- 
nine  eight-thousandth  parts  of  certainty  that  he  is! 
A  felicitous  mode  of  expression,  it  must  be  confessed. 
What  would  be  the  fraction  for  expressing  the  ratio  of 
probability,  on  the  supposition  that  simony,  heresy,  or 
infidelity,  can  invalidate  holy  orders  is,  considering  the 
history  of  the  middle  ages,  far  beyond  our  arithmetic."" 
"We  can  imagine,"  says  the  same  lively  writer,  "the 
perplexity  of  a  presbyter  thus  cast  in  doubt  as  to- 
whether  or  not  he  has  ever  had  the  invaluable  '  gift ' 
of  apostolical  succession  conferred  upon  him.  As  that 
gift  is  neither  tangible  nor  visible,  the  subject  neither 
of  experience  nor  consciousness,  as  it  cannot  be 
known  by  any  'effects'  produced  by  it,  he  may 
imagine — unhappy  man! — that  he  has  been  'regener- 
ating' infants  by  baptism,  when  he  has  been  simply 
sprinkling  them  with  water.  '  What  is  the  matter  ?  ' 
the  spectator  of  his  distractions  might  ask.  'What 
have  you  lost  ?  '  '  Lost ! '  would  be  the  reply,  '  I  fear 
I  have  lost  my  apostolical  succession ;  or  rather,  my 
misery  is,  that  I  do  not  know  and  cannot  tell  whether 
I  ever  had  it  to  lose.'  It  is  of  no  use  here  to  suggest 
the  usual  questions,  '  When  did  you  see  it  last  ?  When 
were  you  last  conscious  of  possessing  it?  What  a  pe- 
culiar property  is  that  of  which,  though  so  invaluable, 
nay,  on  which  the  whole  efficacy  of  the  Christian  min- 
istry depends,  a  man  has  no  positive  evidence  to  show 
whether  he  ever  had  it  or  not !  which,  if  ever  conferred, 

*  Edinburgh  Bemew,  for  April,  1843,^P.  271.     Amer.  Keprint. 


98  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

was  conferred  without  his  knowledge;  and  which,  if  it 
could  be  taken  away,  would  still  leave  him  ignorant, 
not  onl}'  when,  where,  and  how  the  theft  was  com- 
mitted, but  whether  it  had  ever  been  committed  or  not! 
The  sympathizing  friend  might  probably  remind  him, 
that  as  he  was  not  sure  he  had  eA^er  had  it,  so  perhaps 
he  still  had  it  without  knowing  it.  ^Perhaps !'  he 
would  reply,  'but  it  is  certainty  I  want.'  'Well,'  it 
might  be  said,  'Mr.  Gladstone  assures  you,  that,  on 
the  most  moderate  computation,  your  chances  nre  as 
8,000  to  1  that  you  have  it.'  'Pish!'  the  distracted 
man  would  exclaim,  'What  does  Mr.  Gladstone  know 
about  the  matter?  '  And  truh'  to  thttt  query  we  know 
not  well  what  answer  the  friend  could  make." 

It  thus  appears  that  there  is  no  historical  evidence 
for  the  succession ;  and  that  no  man  can  be  certain 
that  he  is  a  presbyter  or  priest  upon  this  theory.  This 
baseless  theory  is  that  upon  which  wretched  men,  tra- 
velling to  the  bar  of  God  and  the  retributions  of  eter- 
nity, are  invited  to  rest  their  hope  of  salvation,  instead 
of  resting  it  upon  Jesus  Christ,  the  Saviour  of  sinners, 
freely  offered  to  them  in  the  gospel!  Blessed  is  he 
who  can  say,  in  spite  of  all  the  cavilling  of  Pharisees, 
cavilling  about  the  uncanonical  method  of  his  salva- 
tion :  "  One  thing  I  know,  that  whereas  I  was  blind, 
noAv  I  see!"  Blessed  is  he  who  gets  his  healing  di- 
rectly from  the  Great  Physician,  without  the  manipu- 
lations of  those  who  sit,  or  imagine  that  they  sit,  in 
Moses'  seat!  No  Avonder  that  the  world  is  infidel  when 
sxicJi  a  doctrine,  without  CA-idence  and  against  all  evi- 
dence, is  preached  to  them.  A  man  must  denude  him- 
self of  his  rational  nature  before  he  can  believe  it. 

The  doctrine  AA^as  invented,  not  for  the  glorifying  of 
Christ,  but  for  the  glorifying  of  the  clergy.  Great  is 
the  contrast  between  the  apostles  and  their  pretended 
successors.  "The  former  are  intent,  almost  exclusiA^ely 
intent,  on  those  great  themes  which  render  the  gospel 
'glad   tidings;'  the   latter,  almost   as   exclusively,  in 


Apostolical  Succession.  99 

magnifying  their  office.  The  former  absolutely  forget 
themselves  in  their  flocks ;  the  latter  well  nigh  forget 
their  flocks  in  themselves.  The  former,  if  they  touch 
on  the  clerical  office  at  all,  are  principally  intent  on  its 
spiritual  qualifications  and  duties;  the  latter,  on  its 
prerogatives  and  powers.  To  hear  these  men  talk, 
one  would  imagine  that,  by  a  similar  'jazsnou  rrffOTspov, 
with  that  of  the  simple-minded  monk  who  'devoutly 
thanked  God  that  in  his  wisdom  he  had  always  placed 
large  rivers  near  large  towns,'  they  supposed  the  church 
of  Christ  to  be  created  for  the  sole  use  of  the  clergy  ; 
and  the  doctrine  of  '  apostolical  succession '  to  be  the 
Jl?ial  cause  of  Christianity." — EdhiTmrgli  Review,  April, 
1843,  page  292. 

The  whole  system  to  which  this  doctrine  belongs  is 
a  substitute  for  Christianity,  whose  chief  glory  is  its 
spiritual  and  moral  character.  It  substitutes  "for  a 
worship  founded  on  intelhgent  faith,  a  devotion  which* 
.  is  a  species  of  mechanism,  and  rites  which  operate  as 
by  magic.  The  doctrine  of  apostolical  succession  itself 
is^  neither  more  nor  less  respectable  than  that  of  the 
hereditary  sanctity  of  the  Brahminical  caste ;  while  the 
prayer-mills  of  the  Tartars  aflbrd  a  fair  illustration 
of  the  doctrine  of  sacramental  efficacy."  It  is  sheer 
heathenism. 

What  is  Christianity  if  it  be  not  a  method  of  salva- 
tion through  Jesus  Christ,  to  be  received  through  faith  ? 
Justification  by  faith  alone  is  its  fundamental  arti- 
cle; the  ''articuliis  staatis  cmt  cadentis  ecdeske.'"  What 
is  heathenism  but  the  attempt  to  appease  an  angry 
God  by  human  works,  or  by  human  ordinances  effica- 
cious ex  opere  operato  f  The  system  to  which  the  apos- 
tolical succession  belongs  can  never  consist  with 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone  in  Jesus 
Christ.  The  preaching  of  this  latter  doctrine  led  Luther 
necessarily  to  a  rejection  of  the  papal  theory  of  the 
church  and  the  priesthood;  and  it  was  because  the 
papal  priests  saw  that  their  craft  was  in  danger  from 


100  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

the  preacliing  of  this  doctrine  that  thej  set  themselves 
so  resokitelj  to  overthrow  it.  If  a  sinner  can  lay  hold 
on  Christ  freely  offered  to  him  in  the  gospel,  and  ob- 
tain the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  acceptance  with  God ; 
if  he  can  have  immediate  access  to  Christ,  the  great 
High  Priest  over  the  house  of  God,  and  can  "draw 
near  with  a  true  heart  in  full  assurance  of  faith,"  what 
need  for  an  earthly  priesthood  and  its  sacramental 
magic  ?  Ilhic  illce  lacrymce.  The  priests  had  no  tears 
to  shed  over  the  damage  done  to  holiness  by  the  doc- 
trine of  the  reformers.  They  would  have  been  "  croco- 
dile tears,"  indeed,  if  shed  by  such  men,  men  who  had 
become  notorious  and  infamous  all  over  Europe  for 
their  immorality.^^  No!  they  knew  that  their  power 
over  men's  souls,  bodies,  and  estates  was  gone,  if  this 
doctrine  came  to  be  believed. 

We  add  something  on  the  doctrine  of  succession  as 
held  by  some  in  the  church  of  England,  and  in  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  America.  1.  If  these 
peoj^le  have  any  "succession,"  they  have  derived  it 
from  the  Church  of  Rome;  and  as  the  succession  in 
Rome  has  been  shown  to  be  a  grand  imposture,  from 
the  Scriptures,  reason  and  history,  and  Rome,  could 
give  no  better  orders  than  she  had  herself — of  course 
the  succession  in  the  Church  of  England  is  an  impos- 
ture also.  2.  The  imposture  is  not  grand  in  the  last 
case,  for  the  simple  reason  that  all  that  makes  the  fig- 

*  As  to  the  moral  complexion  of  papal  couucils,  and  especially  of  tlie 
Council  of  Trent,  the  following  words  of  a  nervous  writer,  who  was  a 
perfect  master  of  the  papal  history,  cannot  be  considered  too  strong : 
"Beleaguered  by  strumpets,  beset  with  fiddlers  and  buffoons,  cursing 
God's  truth,  and  leaving  tracks  strewed  with  bastards  and  dead  men's 
bones!  ^o^^  councils ;  and  above  all,  that  of  Trent!  Which,  by  the 
amazing  wrath  of  God,  cursed  with  judicial  blindness  and  seared  con- 
sciences, did  gather  into  one  vast  monument  those  scattered  proofs 
which  covered  the  long  track  of  ages,  and  those  errors  and  corruptions 
bred  in  the  slime  and  filth  of  the  whole  apostasy;  and  reared  them  up, 
with  patient  and  laborious  vice,  through  eighteen  years  of  God's  long- 
suffering,  the  final  landmark,  the  last  limit  of  his  endurance  with  this 
great,  bloody,  and  drunken  Babylon. " — Spirit  of  the  Nineteenth  Cen- 
tury, 1842,  page  254. 


Apostolical  Succession.  101 

ment  worth  asserting  or  defending  has  been  given  up, 
to  wit,  the  priestly  character  and  the  sacrifice.  It  is 
the  play  of  Hamlet  with  the  part  of  Hamlet  left  out. 
Without  the  assertion  of  some  sacramental  virtue  im- 
parted by  the  bishop's  hands  to  the  presbyter,  and 
some  sacramental  virtue  imparted  by  the  priests'  ma- 
nipulations to  the  laity,  the  pretence  to  the  apostolical 
succession  is  of  all  pretences  the  emptiest  and  the 
silliest.  Hence  we  find  that  a  revival  of  zeal  for  this 
dogma  is  generally  followed  very  soon  by  the  doctrine 
of  sacramental  grace.  There  is  a  necessarj^  connection 
between  the  two,  and  they  cannot  long  be  separated. 

3.  We  may  be  excused  from  believing  the  doctrine  as 
held  by  Anglicans  and  their  American  imitators,  so 
long  as  they  show  so  little  faith  in  it  themselves.  If 
they  believed  it,  they  could  not  help  seeing  that  they 
are  what  Rome  pronounces  them  to  be,  schismatics^ 
and  in  no  better  condition  than  us  poor ."  Dissenters." ' 
Let  them  show  their  faith  by  their  works,  and  we 
shall  be  more  disposed  to  consider  their  pretensions. 

4.  The  advocates  of  this  dogma  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land would  do  well  to  prove  that  the  church  they  be- 
long to  is  a  church  at  all.  According  to  Rome,  a 
bishop  who  is  made  so  by  the  appointment  of  the  chnl 
magutrate  has  a  very  doubtful  claim  to  the  title.  In 
the  thoroughly  Erastian  establishment  of  England,  the 
whole  constitution  of  the  church  is  the  work  of  the 
state,  and  the  people  even  pray  by  "  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment." The  sacramental  virtue,  which  makes  bishops 
and  priests,  comes  at  the  suggestion,  at  least,  of  the 
civil  ministry.  This  accounts  for  the  total  absence  of 
discipline  in  that  church.  It  is  exceedingly  difficult, 
if  not  impossible,  to  get  rid  of  a  bishop  who  avows 
himself  an  infidel.  It  is  not  a  very  broad  caricature 
of  the  "Comedy  of  Convocation,"  to  represent  that 
venerable  body  as  debating  the  question,  Avhether  a 
member  of  the  Church  of  England  may  deny  the  ex- 
istence of  God  without  losing  his  standing  as  a  mem- 


102  EcCLESrOLOGY. 

ber.  5.  This  doctrine  is  not  tauglit  in  the  formularies 
of  the  Church  of  England;  nor  is  it  held  by  very  many 
of  her  best  ministers  and  her  highest  ornaments.  Chil- 
lingworth  certainly  did  not  hold  it,  and  yet  he  had  for 
his  "  God-father,"  no  less  a  man  than  William  Laud, 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  by  whose  influence,  in 
great  measure,  the  strayed  son  was  brought  back  from 
the  fold  of  Kome  into  the  Church  of  England  again. 
Bishop  Butler,  we  imagine,  did  not  hold  it.  It  wo  aid 
have  been  odd,  indeed,  if  such  a  thinker  as  the  author 
of  the  "Analogy  "  had  believed  such  a  conglomeration 
of  absurdities ;  more  especially  as  he  had  been  baptized 
and  brought  up  in  a  Presbyterian  fold.  Archbishop 
Whately  not  only  did  not  believe  it,  but  showed  clearly, 
in  his  Esnays  on  the  Kingdom,  of  Christ,  that  the  thing 
is  absurd.  "  There  is  not,"  says  he,  "  in  all  Christen- 
dom a  minister  who  is  able  to  trace  up,  with  any  ap- 
proach to  certainty  his  own  spiritual  pedigree."  The 
fathers  and  founders  of  the  Church  of  England  did 
not  believe  it,  as  has  been  proved  against  the  writers 
of  the  Oxford  Tracts.*  How  could  men  believe  it,  who 
had  so  clear  a  view  of  the  ordy  priesthood  and  the 
only  sacrifice  of  Christ? — men,  who  were  asking  the 
advice,  continually,  of  Calvin  and  other  Presbyterians 
of  the  Continent  ?  No !  the  really  great  men  of  the 
Anglican  Church,  whose  woi^th  was  real  and  conspic- 
ux)us,  had  no  need  of  insisting  upon  a  sacramental 
virtue  Avhich  is  invisible,  intangible,  inoperative,  mani- 
festing itself  to  no  power  of  perception,  either  of  the 
body  or  mind;  which,  if  a  man  has,  he  is  none  the 
better;  which,  if  he  has  not,  he  is  none  the  worse. t 

*See  in  the  Presbyterian  Bevietc  for  January,  1886,  testimonies  and 
references  to  to  show  that,  down  to  the  time  of  Charles  I.  and  Laud, 
Presbyterian  ordination  was  considered  valid  in  the  church  of  Eng- 
land.    (Pp.  119-'20  of  the  above  number  of  the  Bemew.) 

tSee  Princeton  Beviein  for  1842,  pp.  139,  et  seq. 


Is  THE  Church  of  Kome  a  True  Church  ?         103 


Is  the  Church  of  Rome  a  True  Church  of  Christ? 

[Turretin,  L.  18,  q.  14  ;  Thorn^Yelrs  Writings,  III.  pp.  283  ff. ;  Conf.  of 
Faith,  Chapter  XXV.] 

1.  State  of  tlie  question :  Not  whether  the  church  of 
Rome  of  the  apostle's  time,  nor  of  the  second,  third,  or 
fourth  century,  but  the  church  of  Rome  since  the 
Trent  Council,  is  a  church  of  Christ.  Nor  is  it  about  the 
church  of  Rome  generally  considered,  as  contradistin- 
guished from  Mohammedanism,  Judaism,  Paganism,  but 
particularly  as  subject  to  the  pope  as  the  head  thereof. 

2.  Proofs  that  it  is  not  a  church  of  Christ :  (1),  From 
the  design  of  the  visible  church,  which  is  to  glorify 
God  in  the  ingathering  and  upbuilding  of  the  elect. 
Any  church  whose  constitution  is  such,  or  ^vhose  ad- 
ministration is  such  that  the  tendency,  on  the  whole,  is 
not  to  save  men,  but  to  destroy  them,  is  not  a  church 
of  Christ.  This  is  conceded  virtually  by  Rome  her- 
self, in  insisting,  as  she  does,  that  there  is  no  possi- 
bility of  salvation  out  of  her  communion,  because  she 
is  the  only  true  church.  Is,  then,  the  prevailing  ten- 
dency of  Rome  and  her  ordinances  a  tendency  to  sal- 
vation ?  I  say  prevailing  tendency.  Men  may  be  con- 
verted within  her  pale,  no  doubt ;  and  men  may  be 
converted  in  an  infidel  club,  or  in  a  theatre,  or  in  a  cir- 
cle of  boon  companions  ;  but  in  spite  of  the  tenden- 
cies, as  is  evident  from  the  fact  that,  as  soon  as  they 
are  born  again,  the  atmosphere  of  such  society"  becomes 
stifling  to  their  new  life,  and  they  quit  it  as  soon  as 
possible.  "  Come  out  of  her,  my  people,"  etc.  Now, 
that  the  tendency  of  Rome  is  not  saving,  but  damning, 
is  evident  from  the  fact  that  she  has  not  "  the  minis- 
try, oracles,  and  ordinances"  which  God  has  given  to 
the  church  visible  for  this  end.     Of  these  in  their  order : 

(«),  Ministry.  Contrast  the  hierarchy  with  the  offi- 
cers of  the  apostolic  church.  The  people  disfranchised 
and  ground  to  pieces  by  the  great  iron  wheel.     The 
names  they  have  retained,  those  of  bishop,  presbyter, 
9 


104  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

and  deacon,  but  how  totally  diiferent  the  nature  of  the 
offices.  Neither  bishop  nor  presbyter  is  a  preacher  of 
the  gospel,  but  a  priest ;  and,  when  consecrated,  the 
priest  has  given  to  him,  not  a  Bible  as  the  symbol  of 
his  office,  but  the  cup  and  paten,  with  authority  to 
offer  sacrifice,  and  that,  too,  sacrifice  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  the  Son  of  God,  for  the  sins  of  the  living  and 
the  dead  :  thus  exercising  an  office  totally  different 
from  that  of  the  minister  of  the  word,  whose  commision 
was,  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  glad  tid- 
ings," etc.  The  minister  is  no  priest  in  the  literal  sense, 
for  Christ  is  the  only  priest ;  he  is  not  the  only  priest 
in  the  tropical  sense,  for  all  God's  people  are  priests, 
a  royal  priesthood.  The  Roman  priesthood,  therefore, 
is  at  once  the  denial  of  the  priesthood,  both  of  Christ 
and  of  his  people.  The  bishops  are  no  spiritual  rulers, 
chosen  of  God,  through  the  voice  of  the  people,  and 
administering  the  law  of  Christ,  but  the  tools  of  a  des- 
potism which  consults  only  the  demands  of  the  lusts  of 
power  and  gold,  and  using  heaven  and  hell  as  the 
sanctions  of  their  anti-christian  tyranny.  To  crown 
all,  the  pope  is  antichrist,  setting  himself  in  the  place 
of  Christ  (and  therefore  against  him),  as  prophet,  priest 
and  king,  and  head  over  all  things  to  the  body,  the 
church — lording  it  over  God's  heritage,  instead  of  be- 
ing a  helper  of  their  joy.  Even  the  ambitious  Pontiff", 
Gregory  I.,  in  the  close  of  the  sixth  century,  pro- 
nounced the  claim  to  be  universal  bishop  blasphem- 
ous, infamous  and  a  mark  of  antichrist. 

(b).  Grades.  This  includes  not  only  the  Rule  of 
Faith,  but  the  authorized  and  current  interpretation  of 
the  rule.  Under  this  head  observe,  («),  That  she  has 
added  to  the  rule  Avhich  God  has  given  ;  (Z*),  That  in  the 
interpretation  of  the  rule,  she  makes  the  part  which 
God  has  gi^^en  bend  to  the  part  she  herself  has  added ; 
thus  acting  in  contradiction  to  the  example  of  the  apos- 
tles who,  when  adding  to  the  rules  of  the  Old  Testament 
under  their   commission  from   God  as  inspired,   still 


Is  THE  Church  of  Rome  a  True  Church  ?        105 

quote  everywhere  the  Old  Testament,  to  show  that 
then-  teaching  was  in  harmony  with  the  Old  Testament 
— that  their  religion  was  not  new,  but  as  old  as  the 
garden  of  Eden ;  (c),  That  she  denies  the  rule  to  her 
members,  upon  the  pretence  that  the  church  alone  has 
the  right  to  interpret ;  thereby  practically  denying  faith 
and  repentance  to  the  people,  and  damning  them; 
thereby  shutting  out  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  usurping  his 
office  as  the  infallible  witness  of  Christ.  Rome  decrees 
that  God  shall  not  speak  to  men  except  through  the 
atheists,  adulterers  and  murderers  that  sit  in  the  seat 
on  the  Seven  Hills,  and  claiming  to  be  gods  and  wor- 
shipped as  gods;  (d),  T^hat  the  creed  thus  derived, 
from  the  infallible  interpretation  of  the  church,  is  not 
a  saving  creed.  Not  that  it  formally  denies  all  the  fun- 
damejital  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  but  teaches  so  much 
of  error,  and  such  kind  of  error,  as  to  make  the  creed, 
as  a  whole,  poison  and  not  food.  The  sum  of  the 
teachings  of  Scripture,  concerning  the  plan  of  salva- 
tion, is  contained  in  1  John  v.  8 — the  three-fold  record 
of  the  Spirit,  the  Avater  and  the  blood.  The  two  last 
are  emblematical  of  the  two  great  divisions  of  the  Re- 
deemer's work — a  change  of  state  and  a  change  of  char- 
acter— justification  and  sanctification.  The  Spirit's  tes- 
timony being  the  mode  by  which  these  blessings  be- 
come the  property  of  the  sinner.  As  to  the  blood,  it 
can  be  shown  that  Rome  is  fundamentally  heretical. 
Paul  teaches  that  no  creed  which  teaches  salvation  by 
works  can  be  a  saving  one.  But  Rome  teaches  such  a 
creed,  resolving  our  justifying  righteousness  into  per- 
sonal holiness,  damning  the  doctrine  of  imputation, 
audaciously  proclaiming  the  of  figment  of  human 
merit,  both  of  congruity  and  condignity,  making 
Christ  only  the  remote  and  ultimate  cause  of  pardon 
and  acceptance.  As  to  the  water,  she  makes  holiness 
impossible  by  'denying  the  blood.  Pardon  is  essential 
to  holiness,  and  Rome,  in  denying  the  possibility  of 
pardon,  denies  the  possibility  of  holiness.     She  is  also 


106  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

aiitinoinian,  expunging  one  of  the  commandments  of 
the  decalogue,  and  making  a  hypocritical  will-worship 
to  take  the  place  of  holy  obedience.  8he  is  an  idola- 
trous church.  As  to  the  Spirit,  she  is  a  Pelagian,  or,  at 
the  very  best,  a  semi-Pelagian. 

(c),  Ordinances.  The  most  of  her  ordinances  are  of 
her  own  invention ;  but  even  of  those  which  God  has  or- 
dained, she  has  changed  utterly  their  nature  and  their 
use,  so  that  they  are  no  longer  the  ordinances  of  God. 
Baptism,  the  Lord's  supper,  ordination,  are  changed 
materially  and  formally.  As  to  the  use,  her  notion  of 
the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  denies  the  agency  of  the 
Spirit,  and  makes  them  causes  or  hmos  of  grace  instead 
of  means.  So  that  no  sinner  believing  the  creed  of 
Rome  and  obeying  the  laws  of  Rome,  can  possibly  be 
saved.     She  is,  therefore,  no  church  of  Christ. 

The  Nature  and  Extent  of  Church  Power. 

1.  The  church  may  be  considered  either  as  to  its 
essence  or  being,  or  as  to  its  power  and  order,  when 
it  is  organized.  As  to  its  essence  or  being,  its  constit- 
uent parts  are  its  niatter  ^LH^forin. 

'A.  By  the  matter  of  the  church  is  meant  the  persons 
of  which  the  church  consists,  with  their  qualifications ; 
by  i\\Q  fo7in,  the  relation  among  these  persons,  as  or- 
ganized into  one  body. 

'6.  The  matter  of  the  church  has  been  fully  consid- 
ered in  the  preceding  lectures,  together  with  some 
things  belonging  to  i\\e  forra.  We  come  now  to  treat 
of  the  other  questions  connected  with  the  form ;  and, 
first,  as  to  church  power — p)^^^^^^^^' 

4.  The  nature  of  church  power  must  be  considered 
before  the  consideration  of  the  several  modes  in  which 
it  is  exercised,  because  everything  connected  with  these 
modes,  offices,  officers,  courts,  &c.,  is  found  in  the  grant 
of  power  to  the  church  itself,  and  the  institution  of  a 
polity  and  rule  therein  by  Jesus  Christ,  her  only  Head 
and  King. 


Nature  and  Extek+t  of  Church  Power.        107 

5.  This  power  comes  from  Clirist  alone.  The  gov- 
ernment of  the  church  is  upon  his  shoulders,  to  order 
it  (his  kingdom),  and  to  establish  it  with  judgment  and 
justice  forever.  All  power  is  given  to  him.  in  heaven 
and  earth,  by  the  Father,  and  he  is  the  head  of  the 
church,  which  is  his  body,  and  head  over  all  things 
else  for  the  sake  of  his  body.  (See  Westminster  As- 
semhlys  Form  of  Government,  Preface  ;  and  our  Form 
of  Govermnent,  Chap.  II.,  Sec.  1,  Art.  1 ;  Isaiah  ix.  6,  7  ; 
Matthew  xxviii.  18-20;  Eph.  i.  20-23,  compared  with 
Eph.  iv.  8-11,  and  Psalm  Ixviii.  18.) 

6.  This  power,  therefore,  in  the  church  is  only 
"ministerial  and  declarative,"  that  is,  the  power  of  a 
minister  or  a  servant  to  declare  and  execute  the  law 
of  the  Master,  Christ,  as  revealed  in  his  word,  the 
statute-book  of  his  kingdom,  the  Scriptures  contained 
in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  No  officer  or  court 
of  the  church  has  any  legislative  power.  "Christ  alone 
is  Lord  of  the  conscience,  and  hath  left  it  free  from 
the  doctrine  and  commandments  of  men  which  are  in 
anything  contrary  to  the  word,  or  beside  it,  in  matters 
of  faith  and  worship."  {Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  XX. 
Sec.  2.)  Slavery  to  Christ  alone  is  the  true  and  only 
freedom  of  the  human  soul. 

7.  This  statement  is  opposed  to  the  theories  of,  1st, 
Papists;  2nd,  Erastians;  3rd,  Latitudinarians. 

8.  The  papists,  by  their  claim  of  infallibility  for  the 
church  as  the  interj)7'eter  of  the  Scriptures,  as  well  as 
by  the  claim  to  tnaA'e  scripture  (apocrypha  and  tradi- 
tion), make  the  power  of  the  church  magisterial  instead 
of  ministerial,  and  legislative  instead  of  declarative. 
Hence  the  brutal  disregard,  in  that  cliurch,  of  the  lib- 
erty of  Christ's  people.  Antichrist  has  usurped  the 
prophetic  and  regal  as  woll  as  the  priestly  offices  of 
the  church's  head.  Hence  the  name  Antichrist,  in  the 
place  of,  and  therefore  against,  Christ. 

9.  The  Erastians  deliver  the  church  into  the  hands 
of  the  civil  magistrate,  some  of  them  admitting  one  of 


108  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

the  keys  to  belong  to  the  church  (the  key  of  doctrine) ; 
others,  more  consistently,  denying  to  the  church  the 
power  of  both  keys,  and  so  destroying  the  autonomy 
of  the  church  altogether.  This  is  to  be  considered 
more  fully  hereafter.     {Con.  of  Faith,  Chap.  XXIII.) 

10.  The  Latitudinarians  (I  use  the  word  for  want  of 
a  better)  hold  a  discretionary  power  in  the  church,  lim- 
ited only  by  the  prohibitions  of  the  word ;  whatever  is 
not  prohibited,  or  contradicted  by  what  is  commanded, 
is  lawful,  is  a  matter  of  Christian  liberty,  and  the 
church  has  power  to  order  or  not  according  to  her 
yiews  of  expediency.  This  theory  is  held,  or  rather 
practically  carried  out,  in  various  degrees.  Some,  as 
Archbishoj)  Whately  {Kingdom  of  Christ),  contend 
that  ecclesiastical  power  is  ordained  of  God  in  the 
sense  in  which  the  civil  is  ordained.  (Kom.  xiii.  1,  2.) 
The  "powers  that  be"  are  said  to  be  "ordained  of 
God,"  because  God  has  so  constituted  man  that  he 
cannot  live  except  in  society,  and  society  cannot  be 
maintained  except  by  an  organization,  more  or  less 
complete,  and  a  government  of  some  sort.  Now,  men 
of  different  races  and  different  histories  require  differ- 
ent forms  of  government.  The  government  must  be 
the  organic  product,  the  outgrowth,  the  fruit  of  the 
people's  history;  and  as,  consequently,  it  is  mere  po- 
litical quackery  to  prescribe  the  same  civil  constitution 
for  all  nations  alike ;  so,  in  the  societ}^  of  the  church, 
there  must  be  a  government,  and  the  government  must 
be  determined  by  the  character  and  circumstances  of 
the  people ;  and  as  no  form  of  ecclesiastical  polity  is 
forbidden  in  the  New  Testament,  the  church  is  free  to 
adopt  any  that  suits  her. 

Others  (see  Hodge's  Church  Polity,  pages  121  ft'.), 
afraid  to  go  so  far,  contend  that  general  principles 
are  laid  down  in  Scripture,  but  details  are  left  to 
the  discretion  and  wisdom  of  the  church.  This  is 
obviously  a  very  unsatisfactory  rule.  What  are  "  gen- 
eral principles"?     General  princij)les  may  be  either 


Nature  and  Extent  of  Church  Power.        109 

"regulative"  or  "constitutive."  Regulative  principles 
define  only  ends  to  be  aimed  at,  or  conditions  to  be 
observed ;  constitutive  determine  tlie  concrete  form  in 
which  those  ends  are  to  be  realized.  Regulative  ex- 
press the  sjnrit,  constitutive,  ^^forra  of  a  government. 
It  is  a  regulative  principle,  for  example,  that  all  gov- 
ernments should  be  administered  for  the  good  of  the 
governed ;  it  is  a  constitutive  principle  that  the  govern- 
ment should  be  lodged  in  the  hands  of  such  and  such 
officers,  and  dispensed  by  such  and  such  courts.  Reg- 
ulative principles  define  nothing  as  to  the  mode  of  their 
own  exemplification  ;  constitutive  principles  determine 
the  elements  of  an  actual  polity.  {Thorniceirs  Worlds, 
IV.,  page  252.) 

Now,  if  Dr.  Hodge's  general  principles  are  regula- 
tive only,  then  he  is  as  much  of  a  latitudinarian  as 
Whately.  If  they  are  constitutive,  he  is  as  much  a 
"  strict-constructionist "  as  Dr.  Thorn  well.  He  uses  art 
illustration  which  in  one  part  Avould  seem  to  indicate 
tiiat  his  general  principles  are  constitutive ;  but  in  the 
other,  regulative.  "There  are  fixed  laws,"  he  says, 
"assigned  by  God,  according  to  which  all  healthful 
development  and  action  of  the  external  church  are  de- 
termined. But,  as  within  the  limits  of  the  laws  which 
control  the  development  of  the  human  body  there  is 
endless  diversity  among  different  races,  adapting  them 
to  different  climes  and  modes  of  living,  so  also  in  the 
church.  It  is  not  tied  down  to  one  particular  mode  of 
organization  and  action  at  all  times,  and  under  all  cir- 
cumstances." Now,  the  two  parts  of  his  illustration 
do  not  hold  together.  The  organization  of  the  human 
body  is  the  same  in  all  races,  climes,  and  ages.  Dif- 
ferences of  complexion,  stature,  conformation,  et  cetera, 
there  doubtless  are;  but  the  organization  is  the  same. 
And  this  is  the  kind  of  unity  and  uniformity  we  claim 
for  the  church  as  a  divine  institute.  Hodge  elsewhere 
seems  to  acknowledge  something  like  constitutive  prin- 
ciples revealed  in  Scripture.     He  makes  the  three  dis- 


110  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

tinctive  features  of  Presbyterianism  to  be :  1st,  The 
parity  of  the  ministry;  2nd,  The  right  of  the  people 
to  take  part  in  the  government;  3rd,  The  unity  of  the 
church.  I  do  not  acknowledge  these  to  be  distinctive 
principles  of  Presbyterianism ;  but  they  look  some- 
thing like  constitutive  principles.  We  shall  see  here- 
after that  the  second  of  these  principles  is  no  principle 
of  Presbyterianism  at  all,  much  less  a  distinctive  one. 

In  regard  to  this  latitudinarian  theory,  I  observe : 

1st.  That  it  differs  little  in  effect  from  the  Papal  and 
Erastian.  It  makes  man,  and  not  God,  to  determine 
the  whole  matter. 

2d.  It  is  contrary  to  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  the 
sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures  as  a  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  See  C.  of  F.,  Ch.  I.  Sec.  6;  "the  whole  coun- 
sel of  God,"  &c.  It  implies  that  in  regard  to  a  large 
sphere  of  human  duty,  and  that  too,  concerning  so 
high  a  matter  as  the  government  of  the  kingdom  of 
Christ,  men  are  left  to  walk  in  the  light  of  their  own 
eyes. 

3d.  It  is  contrary  to  the  liberty  of  the  peoj^le  of  God. 
Dr.  Hodge  and  others  speak  of  strict  Presbyterians  as 
if  they  were  bringing  the  church  under  the  yoke  of 
bondage  by  insisting  upon  a  "Thus  saith  tlie  Lord" 
for  everything.  We  answer,  that  the  liberty  of  the  be- 
liever does  not  consist  in  doing  what  he  pleases,  but 
inl)eing  the  slave  of  Christ.  "Be  ye  not  the  slaves  of 
men''  is  the  apostle's  command.  And  the  assumption 
of  this  wide  discretion  by  the  church  has  been  the 
great  cause  of  the  tj'ranny  which  has  been  exercised  by 
church  rulers  over  the  poor  sheep  of  Christ.  Liberty, 
in  the  mouths  of  those  who  have  the  power  in  their 
hands,  means  doing  what  they  please,  serving  their  own 
lust  of  dominion,  and  lording  it  over  the  weak  and  de- 
fenceless. Witness  the  Pharisees,  Papists,  Anglicans, 
and  the  free  democracies.  Liberty  is  a  mere  word  to 
juggle  with,  except  in  the  sphere  of  the  Spirit  and  in 
union  with  Christ.     Where  the  largest  discretionary 


Nature  and  Extent  of  Church  Power.       Ill 

power  lias  been  claimed  and  exercised  in  the  nominal 
church  of  God,  there  have  the  people  groaned  under 
the  hardest  bondage ;  for  it  is  the  discretionary  power 
of  the  rulers  to  impose  burdens  upon  the  people. 
First  prelacy,  then  popery,  with  the  aid  of  the  "  Cath- 
olic doctrine,"  grew  out  of  the  notion  that  the  consti- 
tution of  the  church  in  the  apostolic  age  did  not  suit 
the  church  in  its  more  advanced  stage,  and  that  a  form 
corresponding  with  the  organization  of  the  empire 
would  suit  the  people  better,  and  not  being  condemned 
by  the  Word,  it  might  be  lawfully  established.  Hence, 
as  there  were  prefects,  ex-archs,  et  cet.,  in  the  civil, 
so  there  ought  to  be  patriarchs,  metropolitans,  etc.,  in 
the  ecclesiastical  organization.  And  as  the  civil  pyra- 
mid was  capped  with  an  emperor,  so  the  ecclesiastical 
with  a  pope.  But  what  became  of  the  liberties  of  the 
people?  So  also  in  England — contest  between  Puri- 
tans and  Anglicans.  The  liberty  of  the  monarch,  or 
the  parliament,  or  the  church,  to  convert  the  adiapliora 
into  laws,  was  only  the  liberty  to  destroy  the  liberty 
of  those  whom  God  hath  made  free.  The  "judicious 
Hooker"  laid  the  egg  which  was  hatched  by  the  impe- 
rious Laud.  Another  instance,  sadder  than  all  to  us, 
is  the  history  of  the  Old  Scliool  Presbyterian  Church 
of  the  North,  which  set  up  its  deliverances  on  "doc- 
trine, loyalty,  and  freedom,"  as  terms  of  communion 
in  the  church.  The  Avord  of  God,  and  that  word  only, 
is  the  safe-guard  of  freedom. 

4th.  It  is  founded  upon  a  false  analogy  between  a 
natural,  social  and  civil,  or  political  development,  and 
a  supernatural,  social,  and  ecclesiastical  development. 
In  the  sphere  of  man's  natural  life,  it  is  undoubtedly 
true,  as  has  been  already  suggested,  that  the  form  of 
civil  polity  must  be  determined  by  the  character,  cir- 
cumstances, or,  in  a  word,  by  tlie  history  of  a  people ; 
must  be  the  friiit  of  the  past,  and  not  an  arbitrary 
theory  or  utopian  constitution,  founded  upon  abstract 
notions  of  what  is  best.     And,  consequently,  since  the 


112  .     ECCLESIOLOGY. 

life  of  every  people  is  its  own,  and  different  from  that 
of  every  other  people,  the  government  must  be  differ- 
ent. A  striking  proof  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  the 
present  condition  of  this  country,  where  two  sections 
of  a  country  have  had  such  different  developments 
that  one  must  be  held,  by  main  force,  as  a  conquered 
province,  hecaiise  it  adhered  to  the  constitution  of  the 
country,  and  the  other  has  forsaken  and  subverted  the 
constitution.  But  the  case  is  very  different  with  the 
church,  for  the  simple  reason  that  her  life  is  not  nat- 
ural, but  supernatural ;  she  does  not  gix^w  into  a  free 
commonwealth,  but  is  free-honi,  not  of  blood,  nor  of 
the  will  of  man,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  but  of  God. 
She  is  composed  of  all  kindreds  and  tongues,  and  peo- 
ples and  nations.  All  the  members,  whether  subjects 
of  a  monarchy,  or  citizens  of  a  republic,  are  spiritually 
and  ecclesiastically  free:  "For  where  the  spirit  of  the 
Lord  is,  there  is  liberty."  Hence,  in  the  early  church, 
the  subjects  of  a  Nero,  or  Caligula,  or  Domitian  were, 
at  the  same  time,  members  of  a  free  commonwealth. 
In  the  state  the  soul  makes  for  itself  a  body,  an  exter- 
nal organism,  through  which  it  may  act ;  in  the  church 
the  soul,  as  in  the  old  creation,  has  a  body  made  for 
it  by  God,  its  creator.  The  polity  of  the  church,  there- 
fore, like  the  body  of  man,  ought  to  be  everywhere  the 
same  organism  essentially.  It  confirms  this  view,  that 
the  church  changed  its  external  organization  only  after 
she  had  become  corrupt  and  had  lost  her  internal  and 
spiritual  freedom.  After  she  had  become  w^orldly  in 
spirit,  she  became  subject  to  like  changes  with  the 
world,  and  this  liability  to  change  became  the  more 
marked  Avlien  she  became  identified  with  the  Avorld 
through  her  union  with  the  state  under  Constantine 
and  his  successors.  In  the  middle  ages  the  nominal 
church  had  become  almost  natural  and  earthly  in  her 
life,  and,  of  course,  lost  her  freedom  altogether.  For 
a  great  portion  of  her  history  her  true  life  has  been 
maintained   in  small   bodies   of  witnesses,  whom  she 


Nature  and  Extent  of  Church  Power.        113 

disowned  and  persecuted.  And  so  in  the  Northern 
States  of  this  country,  she  identified  herself  with  the 
civil  power,  and  exhibited  more  of  the  spirit  of  the 
harlot  upon  the  scarlet-colored  beast,  than  of  the 
spirit  of  the  spouse  of  Christ. 

5th.  It  is  contrary  to  the  j^lain  teachings  of  God's 
word  and  of  our  constitution,  in  regard  to  the  nature 
of  church  power.  According  to  those  standards  all 
church  power  is  "  ministerial  and  declarative."  The 
officers  of  the  church  are,  collectively,  a  ministry,  and 
each  officer  is  a  minister  or  servant.  Christ  himself 
condescended  to  be  a  minister,  and  in  that  memorable 
rebuke  which  he  administered  to  the  ambition  of  his 
disciples,  he  informs  them  that  the  power  which  they 
are  to  exercise  in  the  church  is  unlike  that  of  civil 
rulers,  even  of  those  civil  rulers  whose  administra- 
tion has  entitled  them  to  the  denomination  of 
"benefactors";  for  it  is  a  power  of  service,  of  obe- 
dience to  him  for  the  sake  of  his  church,  and  not  a 
power  of  lordship  or  dominion.  The  only  honor  in 
the  church  is  the  honor  of  hard  work  for  the 
church.  The  power  of  a  preacher  is  the  power  of  a 
minister  or  servant  to  declare  his  Master's  will,  both  in 
reference  to  the  credenda  and  agenda  in  preaching. 
The  power  of  a  ruling  elder  is  the  power  to  do  the  like 
in  ruling,  and  especially  to  aj^ply  that  will  in  the  actual 
exercise  of  discipline.  A  presbytery,  whether  congre- 
gational, provincial  or  general,  is  a  body  of  servants  or 
ministers  to  declare  the  law  and  find  the  facts  and  ren- 
der a  verdict,  such  as  is  authorized  by  the  word  of 
Christ,  who  has  established  the  court,  created  the 
judges,  and  defined  their  functions.  A  deacon,  as  his 
very  name  signifies,  is  a  servant  to  do  his  master's 
will  in  regard  to  the  collection,  custody  and  distribu- 
tion of  the  revenues  of  his  kingdom. 

6th.  Lastly,  it  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of  the  be- 
liever's life,  which  is  a  life  of  faith  and  of  obedience, 
implying  a  divine  testimony  and  a  divine  command.  If 


114  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

the  clmrch  officers,  then,  have  power  to  make  institu- 
tions and  create  officers  which  God  has  not  ordained, 
then  the  people  have  the  right  to  refuse  obedience, 
and  there  is  a  dead  lock  in  the  machinery.  There  is 
no  power  to  enforce  obedience,  for  all  church  power  is 
moral  and  spiritual,  and  no  man  can  be  required  to 
promise  or  render  obedience  except  in  the  Lord. 

11.  All  church  power  then  is  simply  "ministerial  or 
declarative."  The  Bible  is  a  positive  charter — a  defi- 
nite constitution — and  what  is  not  granted  is,  for  that 
reason,  held  to  be  forbidden.  A  constitution,  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  can  only  prescribe  what  vi  ust  he.  If 
it  should  attempt,  explicitly,  to  forbid  everything  which 
human  ingenuity,  malice,  or  audacity,  might  invent, 
the  world  could  scarcely  contain  the  things  that  should 
be  written.  The  whole  function  of  the  church,  there- 
fore, is  confined  to  interpretation  and  obedience  of  the 
woi'd.  All  additions  to  the  word,  if  not  exj)U('ithj  pro- 
hibited, are  at  least  prohibited  hnplichly  in  the  gen- 
eral command  that  nothing  he  added. 

12.  The  ministerial  and  declarative  power  of  the 
church  has  been  distributed  in  the  books  into  several 
classes.  For  instance,  in  the  Second  Book  of  Disci- 
pline of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland,  Andrew  Melville  says : 
"  The  whole  policy  of  the  Kirk  consisteth  in  three 
things,  viz. :  in  doctrine,  dh^cqyline  and  didrdyutioii" 
where  the  alliteration  is  used  for  a  mnemonic  purpose. 
"Discipline"  is  used  in  the  wise  sense  of  government 
and  "distribution  "  for  everything  pertaining  to  the  of- 
fice of  deacon.  Others  (See  Turretin,  L.  18,  Q.  29,  1l 
5),  divide  church  power  into  dogmatic  and  judicial,  or 
disciplinary,  corresponding  with  the  symbol  of  the 
"keys" — the  key  of  knowledge  and  the  key  of  disci- 
pline or  government ;  or  where  the  figure  is  that  of  a 
pastor  or  shepherd  instead  of  a  steward — the  sUtff 
"Beauty,"  and  the  staff  "Bands."  Zech.  xi.  7.^  There 
is  a  distribution  of  this  power  better  still  (see  Turretin 
ut  supra)  into  dogmatic,  diatactic  and  diacritic.     The 


Nature  and  Extent  of  Church  Power.  115 

first  relating  to  doctrine,  the  second  to  polity  and  ad- 
ministration, the  third  to  the  judicial  exercise  of  disci- 
pline. Another  distribution  of  the  ^wtestas  ecclesiastica 
is  inio  potestas  ordinis  and  ^^testas  reghninis  or  juris- 
dictioiiis.  (Note  the  sense  in  which  these  terms  are 
used  by  papal  writers,  p.  49  supra.  See  Second  Book 
of  Discipline,  chapter  I. ;  also  Gillespie's  Assertion  of 
the  Government  of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland,  in  Presbyter ian 
Armory,  Yol.  I.  p.  12  ;  of  Gillespie's  Treatise,  Chap.  II.) 
This  distinction  signalizes  the  mode  in  which  power  is 
exercised,  whether  by  church  officers  severally,  or 
church  officers  jointly ;  the  potestas  ordinis  being  a 
several  poAver ;  the  ])otestas  regiininis,  a,  joint  -power. 
Teaching  may  be  either.  The  preacher  exercises  the 
power  of  order  when  he  preaches  the  gospel ;  a  church 
court  exercises  the  power  of  government  when  it  com- 
poses or  issues  a  creed,  or  when  it  testifies  for  the  doc- 
trine or  precepts  of  Christ,  and  against  errors  and  im- 
moralities. It  is  teaching,  and  that  jointly,  the  word 
of  Christ,  either  in  regard  to  what  we  are  to  believe 
concerning  God  or  what  God  requires  of  us.  The  dog- 
?natic  power,  therefore,  may  be  either  jointly  or  sever- 
ally exercised.  The  diattictic  and  the  diacritic  must  be 
e^erci^ed  joi7itly,  and,  therefore,  belong  to  the  potestas 
reghninis  or  jurisdictionis.  The  Westminster  standards 
are  composed  and  arranged  according  to  this  division. 
The  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  Catechisms  belong  to 
the  potestas  dogmatica  ;  the  Form  of  Government,  the 
Directory  for  Worship,  and  the  Rules  of  Order  mainly 
to  the  potestas  dvdactica\  the  Canons  of  Discipline 
mainly  to  the  potestas  diacritica. 

13.  Proof  that  this  power  belongs  to  the  church. 
1st,  From  the  gift  of  the  keys.  Matthew  xvi.  19,  20; 
xviii.  18;  John  xx.  22,  23.  2d,  From  the  nature  of 
society.  This  power  constitutes  the  bands  and  joints 
by  which  it  is  at  once  able  to  live  and  to  act.  3d, 
From  the  existence  of  offices  in  the  church ;  but  office 
implies  powder.  4th,  From  the  titles  given  to  these 
10 


116  '  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

offices  in  1  Tim.  v.  17,  1  Thess.  v.  12,  Heb.  xiii.  17, 
Acts  XX.  28,  1  Cor.  iv.  1,  2 ;  Tit.  i.  7,  1  Cor.  xii.  28. 
5tli,  From  passages  of  Scripture  in  whicli  the  exercise 
of  this  power  is  mentioned,  such  as  2  Cor.  x.  8,  also 
as  1  Cor.  ix.  4,  5,  6 ;  2  Cor.  xiii.  10,  where  "power" 
corresponds  with  potestas.  Also  1  Cor.  v.  3,  4,  5.  6th, 
From  the  fact  that  a  distinction  was  made,  even  in  the 
Old  Testament,  between  the  civil  and  the  ecclesiastical 
power;  but  of  this  more  hereafter. 

14.  As  to  the  diatactic  power  of  the  cliurch  some- 
thing must  be  said  more  particular^,  for  it  is  here  that 
the  greatest  controversies  have  arisen.  How  far  does 
this  arranging,  ordering  power  of  the  church  extend? 

According  to  the  view  we  have  taken  of  church 
power,  as  "  ministerial  and  declarative,"  this  question 
amounts  to  the  same  as  the  question,  "How  far,  and 
in  what  sense,  has  the  church  discretionary  power  over 
details  of  order,  worship,  etc.?"  We  have  seen  that 
there  is  no  legislative  power  in  the  cliurch,  properly  so 
called,  but  only  a  juclicial  and  administrative  power. 
The  law  is  in  the  Bible  and  nowhere  else,  and  Christ 
is  the  onl}^  lawgiver.  But  all  the  details  of  the  appli- 
cation of  the  law^  are  not  given,  and  could  not  have 
been  given  wdthout  swelling  the  book  to  dimensions 
utterly  incompatible  wdth  its  ready  use  as  a  rule. 
Yoluminous  as  human  law  is,  it  cannot  enter  into  min- 
utiae, e.  (/.,  Congress  by  law  establishes  the  Depart- 
ment of  War,  or  of  State,  in  the  executive  administra- 
tion of  the  government;  but  it  leaves  the  making  of 
"regulations"  in  circumstantial  matters,  or  matters  of 
detail,  to  the  head  of  the  department  or  of  a  particular 
bureau;  and  this  officer,  therefore,  does  not  exercise 
legislative  power  in  making  such  "regulations,"  but  a 
diatactic  power,  the  power  of  arranging  and  ordering 
under  the  law.  So  in  the  church,  the  doctrine  of  the 
church  and  its  government  and  worsMp  are  laid  down 
in  Scripture,  and  the  declaration  of  this  doctrine  be- 
longs to  the  potestas  dogniatica.     But  there  are  "  cir- 


Nature  and  Extent  of  Church  Power.        117 

cumstances  in  the  worship  of  God  and  the  government 
of  the  church  common  to  human  actions  and  societies, 
which  are  to  be  ordered  by  the  hght  of  nature  and 
Christian  prudence,  according  to  the  general  rules  of 
the  word,  which  are  always  to  be  observed."  See  C. 
of  F.,  Chap.  I.  Sec.  6,  and  1  Cor.  xi.  13,  11;  xiv.  26-40. 
The  acts  of  church  courts  in  reference  to  these  "  circum- 
stances," are  executive,  or  administrative,  or  diatactic 
"  regulations''  "  Circumstances,"  in  the  sense  of  our 
Confession,  are  those  concomitants  of  an  action,  with- 
out which  it  can  either  not  be  done  at  all,  or  cannot  be 
done  with  decency  and  decorum.  Public  worship,  for 
example,  requires  public  assemblies,  and  in  public  as- 
semblies people  must  agree  upon  a  time  and  a  place 
for  the  meeting,  and  must  appear  in  some  costume  and 
assume  some  posture.  Whether  they  shall  shock  com- 
mon sentiment  in  their  attire,  or  conform  to  common 
practice;  whether  they  shall  stand,  or  sit,  or  lie,  or 
whether  each  shall  be  at  liberty  to  determine  his  OAvn 
attitude — these  are  circumstances.  They  are  neces- 
sary concomitants  of  the  actions,  and  the  church  is  at 
liberty  to  regulate  them.  Parliamentary  assemblies 
cannot  transact  their  business  with  decorum,  efficiency 
and  dispatch  without  moderators,  rules  of  order,  com- 
mittees, etc. ;  and  the  parliamentary  assembly,  and, 
tlierefore,  the  church,  may  appoint  moderators,  com- 
mittees, etc.  All  the  details  in  reference  to  the  dis- 
tribution of  courts,  the  definition  of  a  quorum,  the 
times  of  their  meeting,  the  manner  in  which  they  shall 
be  opened,  details  which  occupy  so  large  a  space  in 
our  Book  of  Order,  are  "circumstances"  which  the 
church,  in  the  exercise  of  her  diatactic  power,  has 
a  perfect  right  to  arrange.  We  must  carefully  dis- 
tinguish between  those  circumstances  which  attend 
"human  actions"  as  such,  i.  e.,  without  which  the  ac- 
tions could  not  be,  and  those  circumstances  which, 
though  not  essential,  are  added  as  appendages.  These 
last  do  not  fall  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  church. 


118  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

She  has  no  right  to  appoint  them.  They  are  circum- 
stances in  the  sense  that  they  do  not  belong  to  the 
substance  of  the  act.  They  are  not  circumstances  in  the 
sense  that  they  so  surround  it  {circurnstaiit)  that  they  can- 
not be  separated  from  it.  (See  Turretin,  L.  18,  Q.  31, 
specially  t  3,  p.  242-'3,  of  Yol.  III.    Carter's  ed.,  1847.) 

A  liturgy  is  a  circumstance  of  this  kind,  as  also  bow- 
ing at  the  name  of  Jesus,  the  sign  of  the  cross  in  bap- 
tism, instrumental  music  and  clerical  robes,  et  cet. 
(See  Owen's  Discourse  on  Liturgies  and  ThornwelFs 
Works,  IV.  p.  247.)  With  this  view  agrees  Calvin.  (See 
Instit.  B.  4,  eh.  10,  pp.  28-31.)  The  notion  of  Calvin 
and  our  Confession  is  briefly  this :  In  public  worship, 
indeed  in  all  commanded  external  actions,  there  are 
two  elements,  a  fixed  and  a  variable.  The  fixed  ele- 
ment, involving  the  essence  or  the  thing,  is  beyond  the 
discretion  of  the  church.  The  variable,  involving  only 
the  ''  circumstances"  of  the  action,  its  separable  acci- 
dents, may  be  changed,  modified  or  altered,  according 
to  the  exigencies  of  the  case.  The  rules  of  social  in- 
tercourse and  of  grave  assemblies  in  different  countries 
vary.  The  church  accommodates  her  arrangements  so 
as  not  to  revolt  the  public  sense  of  propriety.  Where 
people  recline  at  the  meals  she  would  administer  the 
Lord's  supper  to  communicants  in  a  reclining  attitude ; 
w^here  they  sit  she  would  change  the  mode.  (Thorn- 
'welVs  Worhs,  IV.  pp.  246-7.  See  also  Cunningham's 
Reformers  and  Theologians  of  tJte  Reforniation,  p.  31, 
"  Of  the  views,"  &c.,  to  the  bottom  of  p.  32.  Also 
his  essay  on  CJmrch  Power,  ch.  9,  of  his  Church  Prin- 
ciples p.  235  and  ff.  Also  Gillespie's  Dispate  against 
the  English  Popish  Ceremonies,  pt.  3,  ch.  7,  in  Presby- 
terian. Armory,  Vol.  I. 

Laivs  bind  the  conscience  per  se  or  sirnpliciter.  Regu- 
lations bind  it  secundum  quid,  i.  e.,  indirectly  and 
mediately  in  case  of  scandal  and  contempt.  In  the 
first,  we  regard  the  authority  of  God  alone;  in  the 
second,  Ave  regard  the  good  of  our  neighbors.     In  the 


The  Power  Ecclesiastical  and  Civil.        119 

first,  the  auctoritas  inandantis\  in  the  second,  the  man- 
dati  causa  (the  avoiding  of  offence.)  See  Tarretin^  L. 
18,  Q.  31,  Vol.  III.,  p.  255,  Carter's  ed, 

XIII. 

The  Power  Ecclesiastical  Contrasted  with  the 
Power  Civil.  Relation  of  the  Church  to  the 
State. 
We  may  obtain  a  still  clearer  view  of  the  nature  and 
extent  of  church  power  (the  topic  of  the  last  lecture), 
by  comparing  it  with  the  civil  power,  and  considering 
the  relations  of  the  two  organizations  to  which  these 
powers  belong.  In  addition  to  this  reason  for  a  care- 
ful consideration  of  this  topic,  the  history  of  this 
country  furnishes  a  very  weighty  one.  The  providence 
of  God  has,  in  the  loudest  tones,  recalled  the  attention 
of  the  church  to  its  own  nature,  as  constituted  and  de- ' 
fined  by  himself,  to  the  nature  and  functions  of  the 
state  (which  is  also  his  ordinance)  and  to  the  relations 
between  the  two. 

1.  The  fundamental  relations  implied  in  the  distinc- 
tion between  the  power  civil  and  the  power  ecclesias- 
tical have  been  recognized,  more  or  less  clearlj^,  from 
the  beginning  of  the  history  of  our  race.  These  rela- 
tions are  that  of  man  to  man  in  a  state  of  society,  on 
the  one  hand,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  of  man  to 
God,  the  Creator,  the  Moral  Governor,  the  Judge  and 
Sovereign  Proprietor  of  man.  They  have  been  desig- 
nated by  different  names,  and  have  been  the  objects  of 
divers  kinds  of  legislation,  according  to  the  diversities 
of  age  and  country ;  but  whether  known  by  this  name 
or  that;  whether,  in  practice,  partially  separated  or 
totally  confounded,  the  relations  themselves  have  been, 
and  could  not  but  be,  apprehended.  The  relation  of 
man  to  God  would  be  developed  in  the  operations  of 
conscience  arraigning  the  offender  before  an  invisible 
tribunal,  and  pointing  him  to  a  coming  retribution ; 


120  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

the  relation  of  man  to  man  would  force  itself  upon  the 
notice  by  the  necessities  of  every  day's  existence.  Yet 
it  cannot  be  denied  that  in  reference  to  few  objects  of 
human  thought  have  attempts  at  articulate  exposition 
been  more  unsuccessful  than  in  reference  to  this;  or 
that  the  wisdom'  of  the  wisest  men  has  still  more  sig- 
nally failed,  by  any  kind  of  political  machinery,  to  re- 
alize perfectly  the  theories  which  make  the  most  plau- 
sible approximation  to  the  truth.  The  sources  and 
occasions  of  this  failure  will  be  better  understood  by  a 
rapid  historical  review. 

2.  It  is  not  strange  that  these  relations  should  have 
been  confounded,  since,  in  the  beginning,  they  existed 
together  in  the  bosom  of  the  family.  The  family  is 
the  social  unit  under  the  constitution  of  God,  and  not 
the  individual,  as  an  infidel  socialistic  philosophy  as- 
serts. It  is  the  germ  out  of  which  grows  the  great  tree 
of  organized  society,  with  its  far-reaching  and  mul- 
tiplied ramifications.  In  this  germ  the  rudimental 
forms  of  both  church  and  state  existed;  but  they 
existed  after  the  manner  of  all  organic  rudimental 
forms,  so  undeveloped  and  so  mingled  that  their  differ- 
ences could  not  be  perceived.  The  head  of  the  family 
was  both  king  and  priest,  governing  and  ordering  his 
household  in  regard  to  the  things  of  this  life,  and  in- 
structing and  leading  them  in  the  knowledge  and  wor- 
ship of  God.  The  child  grew  up  with  a  reverence  for 
his  father  as  the  disposer  of  all  his  affairs,  the  director, 
the  authoritative  director  of  all  his  thoughts  and  acts 
in  every  part  of  the  sphere  of  his  natural  life,  in  all  his 
spiritual,  as  in  all  his  temporal  relations.  The  father 
prescribed  the  faith  and  duty  of  his  children  in  rela- 
tion to  God,  as  well  as  their  duty  to  himself  and  to  the 
other  members  of  the  family.  In  a  word,  he  was  the 
representative  of  God  in  all  things  to  his  household. 
When  the  child  grew  up,  he  did  not  pass,  as  he  does 
now,  from  a  government  of  this  sort  into  an  organized 
political  or  ecclesiastical  community,  into  a  church  or 


The  Power  Ecclesiastical  and  Civil.         121 

state,  for  there  was  then  neither  church  nor  state  m 
the  modern  sense  of  these  terms ;  but  became  himself 
the  head  of  another  family,  and  was  invested  with 
powers  like  those  which  his  father  before  him  had 
possessed,  both  temporal  and  spiritual. 

3.  This  state  of  society,  in  which  it  would  have  been 
next  to  impossible  to  decide  the  question  still  mooted, 
whether  the  fifth  commandment  belongs  to  the  first  or 
second  table  of  the  law,  continued  in  the  line  of  Abra- 
ham, Isaac  and  Jacob,  down  to  the  organization  of  the 
nation  of  Israel,  when  the  distinction  between  the  civil 
or  temporal  power  and  the  ecclesiastical  begins  to  be 
visibly  developed.  Before  proceeding  to  consider  this, 
however,  let  us  look  for  a  moment  at  the  history  of 
other  lines. 

4.  The  patriarclial  or  family  constitution  of  society 
seems  to  have  been  lost,  and  political  communities  to 
have  been  formed,  sooner  in  these  lines.  The  poster- 
ity of  Cain  seem  to  have  made  more  prog^'ess,  in  the 
modern  or  popular  sense  of  the  word,  than  the  poster- 
ity of  Seth.  In  the  organization  of  society,  as  well  as 
in  invention  and  use  of  the  mechanical  and  fine  arts, 
they  seem  to  have  been  greatly  in  the  advance.  We 
are  told  in  Genesis  iv.  17,  that  Cain  himself,  after  he 
w^ent  out  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  "builded  a 
city.''  He  and  his  family,  therefore,  may  be  regarded 
as  the  founders  of  the  state,  and  of  that  complex  mate- 
rial and  w^orldly  civilization  which  the  state  embodies 
and  represents.  They  were  the  sons  of  7nen,  acknow- 
ledging nothing  higher  than  human  wisdom  and  human 
power,  and  bending  all  their  energies  to  the  one  end 
of  concentrating  the  forces  of  humanity,  and  of  secur- 
ing in  this  way  a  worldly  summum  honuni,  an  all-com- 
prehending good,  which  might  compensate  for  the  loss 
of  the  favor  and  communion  of  God,  which  tliey  had 
deliberately  repudiated.  They  thus  prepared  the  way 
for  the  Babel-builders  and  for  heathenism,  which  is  a 
worship  of  nature  and  its  forces,  and  particularly  of 


122  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

the  wisdom  and  power  of  the  highest  part  of  nature, 
man.  It  is  wortiiy  of  note  that  over  against  this  or- 
ganization of  society,  and  continuation  of  its  forces 
in  the  line  of  the  apostate  Cain  (the  sons  of  men),  oc- 
curs the  record  of  something  like  the  organization  of 
the  true  worshippers  of  God  in  the  line  of  Enos  :  "  Then 
began  men  to  call  themselves  by  the  name  of  Jehovah"* 
(Genesis  iv.  2(3) ;  that  is,  began  to  call  themselves  the 
children  or  peo|)le  of  God.  But  the  time  had  not  yet 
fully  come  for  the  organization  of  the  church  visible 
in  correspondence  with  the  state.  The  church  thus 
formed  united  itself  with  the  state;  the  sons  of  God 
intermarried  with  the  daughters  of  men,  and  the  pro- 
geny which  resulted  from  that  union  was  so  gigantic 
and  monstrous  in  its  wickedness,  so  "violent,"  so  re- 
gardless of  everything  but  va^YQ  force,  that  God  swept 
the  earth  with  the  besom  of  destruction,  and  reduced 
the  race  to  its  original  dimensions  of  a  single  family. 

5.  After  the  flood,  appears  Noah  as  a  new  federal 
head  of  the  human  race,  and  as  the  king  and  priest  of 
his  household,  and  the  development  begins  again.  But 
with  the  like  results.  The  spirit  of  the  beastly  serpent 
shows  itself  in  the  builders  of  "Babel"  (a  name  which, 
from  that  time  forward,  becomes  a  symbol  of  the  power 
of  man  in  opposition  to  the  power  of  God,  and,  there- 
fore, of  man  as  abdicating  the  dignity  of  his  nature 
and  becoming  a  "beast"),  who  renew  the  experiment 
of  their  forerunners,  the  posterity  of  Cain,  the  experi- 
ment of  living  without  God  by  combining  the  individ- 
ual forces  of  man.  (See  Genesis  xi.  1,  4.)  They  built 
a  city  and  a  tow^er,  to  make  themselves  a  name.  Tliey 
became  worshippers  of  men  instead  of  God;  not  man 
as  an  individual,  weak  and  mortal,  but  associated  man. 
And  though  God  confounded  the  ])roject  of  the  city 
and  tower,  yet  Mmrod,  "the  mighty  hunter  before  the 
Lord  "  (that  is,  in  the  very  face  and  in  defiance  of  the 

*  The  renderiiig  iu  the  margin  of  E.  V. 


The  Power  Ecclesiastical  and  Civil.         123 

Lord ;  compare  Genesis  vi.  11 ;  xiii.  13 ;  2  Clironicles 
xxviii.  22 ;  Psa.  lii.  7),  the  mighty  hunter  of  mankind, 
appears  upon  the  stage  as  the  founder  of  the  kingdom 
of  Babylon,  or  Assyria  (Genesis  x.  9,  (fee),  the  first  of 
those  beastly  kingdoms,  the  series  of  which  Daniel 
gives  us  in  his  vision  (Daniel,  vii.),  from  a  point  of 
view  of  a  worshipper  of  God,  and  which  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, from  his  point  of  view,  saw  as  a  splendid  hu- 
man image,  representing  the  dominion  and  glory  of 
man. 

6.  Here,  then,  we  have  the  state  in  a  colossal  form, 
and  from  the  circumstances  of  its  origin  we  can  expect 
nothing  but  an  identification  of  the  civil  and  the  spir- 
itual relations  of  mankind.  If  we  read  carefully  the 
first  seven  chapters  of  the  prophec}^  of  Daniel,  we  can- 
not fail  to  see  that  the  great  subject  is  the  contest  be- 
tween the  supremacy  of  God  and  the  supremacy  of 
man ;  between  the  supremacy  of  God  in  man  and  the 
supremacy  of  man  without  God  and  against  God.  This 
is  the  real  "  conflict  of  ages,"  revealed  in  the  garden 
of  Eden  (Genesis  iii.  15),  and  ending  in  the  triumph 
of  the  "Saviour  of  man,"  as  recorded  in  the  closing 
chapters  of  the  Apocalypse.  "The  seed  of  the  wo- 
man "  (the  "  Saviour  of  man,"  God-man),  and  the  "  seed 
of  the  serpent,"  the  beast,  these  are  the  parties  which 
divide  the  world  and  convulse  it.  These  are  the  par- 
ties which  are  contending  for  the  mastery  upon  the 
territory  of  the  United  States.  Nebuchadnezzar  re- 
fused to  listen  to  anything  from  the  God  of  heaven, 
who  ruled  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth,  until  he 
became  a  beast  of  the  field.  See  the  remarkable  nar- 
rative in  Daniel,  ch.  iv.  Taught  by  this  acted  symbol, 
he  acknowledged  that  his  view  of  his  empire  as  su- 
preme, and  as  demanding  the  homage  of  the  heart  as 
well  as  the  external  obedience  of  the  subject,  was  false, 
and  that  there  was  a  God  in  heaven,  who  ruled  su- 
preme, and  was,  therefore,  alone  entitled  to  be  w^or- 
shipped.     He  became  wiser  than  some  rulers  now  are. 


124  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

7.  We  need  not  trace  the  history  of  apostate  man 
any  further  at  present.  In  all  heathen  governments 
the  result  is  the  same.  The  state,  the  world,  is  zor.av. 
Keligion  is  obedience  to  the  powers  that  be,  and  this 
obedience,  whether  rendered  to  an  oriental  or  an  occi- 
dental despot,  or  to  a  Grecian  or  Roman  democracy 
or  republic,  is  the  whole  of  religion,  because  there  is 
no  higher  God  than  man  in  "humanit}',"  or  than  man 
chooses  to  allow  to  be  worshipped. 

8.  We  return  now  to  the  line  of  the  chosen  seed,  and 
to  the  institute  of  Moses.  What  was  the  relation  of  the 
ecclesiastical  and  civil  power  in  the  nation  of  Israel?  I 
answer,  that  they  were  not  entirely  separated  nor  en- 
tirely confounded.  They  were  in  that  relation  to  each 
other  which  we  might  have  anticipated  from  the  pecti- 
liar  calling  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  from  their  posi- 
tion with  respect  to  the  other  nations  of  the  world.  We 
are  expressly  told  in  Ex.  xix.  5,  6,  that  the  Hebrews 
were  called  to  be  a  ^^ peculiar  treasure  unto  God  above 
all  people,  and  a  kingdom  of  priests  and  a  At>/?/ nation." 
If  this  language  means  anything,  it  means  that  the  Is- 
raelitish  nation  should  differ  from  all  other  nations  in 
this,  that  it  should  be  a  holy,  consecrated  nation — a 
nation  of  worshippers  of  the  true  God,  in  cover' ant 
with  God,  ruled  by  his  word,  and  his  word  only,  arid 
not  by  the  light  of  their  own  reason.  When  other  na- 
tions, therefore,  call  themselves  Christians,  and  as  na- 
tions make  covenants  with  God  and  consecrate  them- 
selves to  his  service  as  worshippers,  they  usurp  privi- 
leges which  God  has  made  peculiar  to  Israel.  Any  na- 
tion which  boasts  that  it  is  a  "  kingdom  of  priests,"  is 
pro  tanto  in  rel)ellion  against  God.  Israel  was  not,  in 
this  respect,  a  model  or  pattern  for  civil  communities, 
but  a  type  of  the  church  of  God  under  the  gospel.  The 
relation  it  sustained  to  God  is  the  relation  that  the 
spiritual  body  of  Christ  sustains  to  him.  The  alli- 
ances which  it  was  forbidden  to  form  with  other  na- 
tions were  types  of  the  alliances  which  the  church  is 


The  Powee  Ecclesiastical  and  Civil.  125 

forbidden  to  form  with  civil  governments  ;  and  the  dis- 
astrous results  of  those  alliances,  the  slavery,  degrada- 
tion and  misery  of  Israel,  were  types  of  the  slavery, 
degradation  and  misery  of  the  church's  alliances  with 
powers  foreign  to  herself  in  nature,  origin,  government 
and  destiny.  God  was  the  sovereign  of  Israel  in  the 
sense  of  being  their  lawgiver,  which  he  is  of  no  other 
nation.  He  was  their  husband,  and  the  husband  of 
no  other.  Transgression  in  them  was  adultery  as  well 
as  treason.  They  were  the  inheritance  of  God,  and  he 
was  their  inheritance.  He  was  their  landlord  and  they 
were  his  tenants.  Their  taxes  were  acknowledgments 
of  his  goodness  and  of  his  proprietorship  in  the  land 
and  in  its  fruits.  Nor  was  he  an  absent  proprietor. 
He  dwelt  among  them.  When  they  dwelt  in  tents,  he 
dwelt  in  a  tent  with  them.  When  they  lived  in  houses, 
he  dwelt  in  a  house  among  them.  They  were  his  fami.- 
ly,  and  he  the  father  and  head.  None  of  these  things 
are  true  of  any  other  nation,  nor  can  they  be.  They 
are  all  true  of  the  Christian  church,  the  body  of  Christ, 
and  eminently  true  of  her  as  the  substance  of  which 
Israel  w^as  the  shadows  This  being  the  case,  there  was 
of  necessity  a  commingling  of  the  civil  and  the  spirit- 
ual. Hence,  w^e  find  the  kings  (whom  God  gave  to  them 
reluctantly,  if  we  may  use  the  expression,  because  it 
sprang  from  a  desire  to  be  lihe  other  nations,)  some- 
times exercising  powers  ^^  circa  sacra^' — about  sacred 
things.  We  are  not,  however,  to  consider  the  king  as 
taking  the  place  of  God,  as  his  vicar  in  the  theocracy. 
In  the  provisions  of  the  law  concerning  the  king 
(Deut.  xvii.  14-20),  w^e  find  no  authority  given  to  him  to 
intermeddle  with  the  faith,  government  or  worship  of  the 
church.  He  is  required  to  have  a  copy  of  the  law,  made 
from  the  standard  text  in  custody  of  the  priests  and  Le- 
vites,  and  to  read  it,  and  keep  it,  that  his  heart  be  not 
lifted  up  above  his  brethren.  When  Uzziah  undertook 
to  burn  incense,  a  function  belonging  to  the  priest- 
hood, he  was  smitten  with  leprosy,  a  punishment  almost 


126  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

as  severe  as  that  inflicted  upon  Uzzah,  a  private  man, 
for  taking  hold  of  the  ark  of  God  when  the  oxen  shook 
it.  2  Chron.  xxvi.  16-23;  2  Sam.  vi.  6,  7.  There  was 
no  king-priest,  no  Melchisedek,  in  IsraeL  See  also  1 
Sam.  xiii.  9-14.  David  meditated  building  a  temple, 
and  Solomon  bnilt  it.  David  Avas  prevented  from  build- 
ing and  Solomon  encouraged  to  build  by  a  prophet 
speaking  in  the  name  of  God  ;  that  is,  by  special  direc- 
tion, and  not  in  the  legal  exercise  of  his  royal  func- 
tions. It  is  further  to  be  noted  that  both  David  and 
Solomon  were  themselves  prophets  in  a  general  sense, 
and  acted  and  wrote  under  inspiration.  Further  still, 
they  were  eminent  tj^pes  of  Christ  as  king — the  one  of 
Christ  as  w^arring  and  conquering,  the  other  of  Christ 
as  a  peacefully  reigning  king.  But  did  not  Hezekiah, 
Josiah  and  other  kings  destroy  idolatrous  worship  and 
reform  the  nation  ?  Certainly ;  they  could  not  do 
otherwise  and  be  faithful  to  the  constitution  of  the  the- 
ocracy, the  fundamental  principle  of  which  was  the 
unity  of  God.  And  no  civil  magistrate  can  noiv  afford 
to  dispense  with  religion  altogether.  The  primary  doc- 
trines of  natural  religion,  the  being  of  a  God  and  a 
moral  government,  are  implied  in  every  oath  of  office 
and  in  every  oath  of  testimony.  Hezekiah  and  Josiah 
also  ordered  the  keeping  of  the  passover  ;  but  this  fes- 
tival bore  a  national  as  well  as  a  religious  character. 
Still  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  kings  of  Israel  ex- 
ercised a  power  about  sacred  things,  which  we  contend 
that  no  king  or  government  has  a  right  now  to  exer- 
cise. They  were  kings  of  "a 7.>(?6'?^//^/?' people,  a  holy 
nation,  a  kingdom  of  priests." 

Again,  let  it  be  considered  that  the  rise  of  the  royal 
dignity  in  Israel  was  contemporary  with  the  rise  of  the 
prophetical  office,  both  growing  out  of  the  typical 
character  of  the  nation.  Considering  the  nation  as  a 
moral  person,  having  an  organic  life  and  a  conscience, 
the  prophet  and  not  the  king,  unless  he  was  also  a 
prophet,  was  the  exponent  of  that  conscience — Ex.  iv. 


The  Power  Ecclesiastical  and  Civil.         127 

16.  It  was  not  accidental,  but  necessary,  that  when 
God  had,  so  to  speak,  given  way  to  a  visible  king,  he 
should  have  the  prophet  as  his  representative  and 
month-piece.  Otherwise,  the  whole  constitution  must 
have  been  subverted.  The  king  was  subject  to  the 
prophet,  because  the  government  was  a  theocracy,  and 
all  civil  and  social  arrangements  were  subordinate  to 
the  religious,  as  the  shell  is  subordinate  to  the  kernel, 
or  the  body  to  the  soul.  Judaism  was  a  religious 
state,  as  Paganism  is  a  political  religion,  and,  it  may 
be  added,  a  political  religion  is  Paganism  and  a  re- 
ligious state  is  Judaism.  We  find,  moreover,  that  the 
prophetic  office  rose  in  importance  as  the  tendency  to 
apostasy,  both  in  king  and  people,  increased.  As  men 
and  as  citizens,  priests  and  prophets  were  under  ob- 
ligation to  obey  the  king;  but  as  priests  and  prophets, 
they  were  subject  to  God  alone,  the  head  of  the  the- 
ocracy ;  a  foreshadowing  of  the  precise  relations  of  the 
office-bearers  of  the  church  under  the  gospel  to  the 
civil  power. 

Upon  the  whole  it  is  a  very  striking  fact,  that  in  an 
oriental  nation,  and  in  a  theocracy,  public  forms  should 
recognize,  to  so  great  an  extent,  the  distinction  and 
separation  between  civil  and  sacred  functions.  See 
2  Chron.  xix.  8-11,  especially  vs.  11.)  We  find  the 
sacerdotal  functions  given  to  a  separate  order  of  offi- 
cers, and  the  whole  ministry  of  the  tabernacle  to  a 
particular  tribe ;  while  the  elders,  the  representatives 
of  the  patriarchal  system,  seem  to  have  continued  the 
exercise  of  civil  functions.  We  do  not  pretend  that 
there  was  an  entire  separation  of  the  secular  and  the 
spiritual.  It  is  possible  that  the  synagogue,  with  its 
mingled  jurisdiction  over  civil  and  ecclesiastical  affairs, 
may  even  then  have  existed,  as  that  jurisdiction  was 
based  on  the  patriarchal  principle  upon  which  the 
whole  Hebrew  commonwealth  was  organized.  But  we 
assert  that  we  have  in  the  books  of  Moses  what  we 
find  nowhere  else  in  the  East,  a  class  of  high  and  hon- 
11 


128  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

or  able  functions  in  the  matter  of  divine  worship  with 
which  the  highest  officer  in  the  state  dared  not  inter- 
meddle; and  further,  that  where  the  two  classes  of 
functions  came  together  the  spiritual  was  supreme.  If 
any  argument,  therefore,  be  drawn  from  Judaism  in 
support  of  the  union  of  church  and  state,  it  is  in  favor 
rather  of  the  Ultramontane  than  of  the  Erastian  the- 
ory. In  this  respect,  as  we  have  seen.  Paganism  pre- 
sents a  strong  contrast  to  Judaism  in  giving  supremacy 
to  the  civil  power.  But  in  both,  as  also  in  Maliome- 
tanism,  the  two  powers  are  so  combined  that  their 
history  cannot  be  separately  written.  There  is  no  his- 
tory of  the  synagogue,  or  the  mosque,  or  the  pagan 
temple,  as  there  is  of  the  church.  See  Gillespie's 
Assertion  of  the  Goverinent  of  the  Kirh  of  Scotland,  Pt. 
II.,  ch.  7  (in  Pres.  Armory,  Vol.  I.),  for  some  ingenious 
arguments  to  prove  that  there  was  a  separation  of  civil 
and  ecclesiastical  courts  among  the  Jews.  Also  Pt.  I., 
ch.  11. 

9.  We  come  now  to  the  era  at  which  the  church  Avas 
to  escape  from  the  trammels  of  the  Hebrew  state  and 
to  assume  a  separate  and  independent  existence.  This, 
of  course,  could  not  be  done  without  a  struggle.  But 
to  make  the  transition  less  abrupt  and  difficult,  Christ 
so  ordered  it  that  the  old  dispensation  was  allowed  to 
overlap  the  new  for  forty  years,  during  Avhicli  period 
the  church  was  gradually  but  rapidly  obtaining  a  foot- 
hold among  the  Gentiles  and  dissolving  its  connec- 
tions with  perverted  and  petrified  Judaism,  which  as- 
sumed, more  and  more,  an  attitude  of  bitter  hostility 
to  it.  The  woman  who  gave  birth  to  the  man-child 
was  preparing  for  her  flight  into  the  Avilderness  of  the 
pagan  nations.  The  "Acts  of  the  Apostles,"  after  de- 
scribing this  process  of  loosening  and  transition,  closes 
with  Paul  at  Eome,  the  great  representative  of  the  free 
church  of  the  Gentiles  at  the  metropolis  of  heathen- 
dom and  of  worldly  power. 

10.  The  first  issue  which  was  formally  made  between 


The  Power  Ecclesiastical  and  Civil.        129 

tliis  worldly  power  and  tlie  cliurcli  was  made  by  tlie 
Emperor  Domitian.  The  persecution  under  Nero  (A. 
D.  54-68)  was  partial  and  local,  and  it  is  by  no  means 
clear  that  the  Christians  were  not  persecuted  as 
Jews ;  but  Domitian  (A.  D.  81-96)  claimed  to  be 
God,  made  statues  of  himself,  to  which  he  insisted 
divine  honors  should  be  paid.  He  was  the  legiti- 
mate successor  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  of  Nimrod. 
It  is  his  persecution  of  the  church  which  con- 
stitutes the  historical  basis  or  starting  point  of  the 
Apocalypse,  as  the  persecution  of  the  ancient  church 
by  Nebuchadnezzar  was  the  historical  basis  of  the 
prophecies  of  Daniel,  the  Apocalypse  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. The  question  became  again  a  practical  one : 
"Is  there  any  god  higher  than  the  head  of  a  world  em- 
pire ?  is  there  any  god  in  heaven  who  rules  the  gods  on 
earth,  and  is  able  to  deliver  his  servants?"  The  "con- 
flict of  ages"  is  resumed  between  the  seed  of  the  ser- 
pent and  the  seed  of  the  woman,  between  man  without 
God  and  man  with  God.  One  of  the  sufferers  in  the 
conflict  on  the  side  of  the  woman's  seed  is  chosen  (cir. 
96  A.  D.)  to  sketch  its  outlines  and  leading  character- 
istics, until  it  shall  be  ended  in  the  victory  of  the  Son 
of  man,  and  the  final  judgment  upon  "the  whore,"  "the 
beast,"  and  "the  false  prophet,"  which  are,  respec- 
tively, symbols  of  the  church  visible  leaning  upon  the 
strength  of  the  civil  power,  and  glorifying  it  instead 
of  Christ ;  of  that  civil  power  usurping  the  preroga- 
Jbives  of  Christ,  and  making  war  upon  all  who  assert 
the  supremacy  of  Christ;  and  of  the  wisdom  of  the 
world  giving  its  support  to  the  civil  power  as  supreme, 
as  the  all-disposing  Lord  and  the  all-comprehending 
Good.  (See  Hobbes's  [b.  1588,  d.  1679]  Zeviathan,  a 
happily-chosen  name,  in  which  this  view  of  the  civil 
government  is  audaciously  advocated.)  If  this  view  of 
the  symbols  be  correct,  it  seems  that  one  of  the  great 
lessons  which  this  wondrous  book  was  designed  to  im- 
press upon  the  church  was  the  certain  pollution  and 


130  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

misery  resulting  from  tlie  union  of  cliureli  and  state ; 
the  certain  corruption  of  both,  and  the  infliction  of 
mutual  wrong  and  outrage;  the  certain  supremacy  of 
the  state  over  the  adulterous  church,  and  the  final  de- 
struction of  the  adulterous  church  by  the  very  power 
upon  which  she  leaned.  Rev.  xvii.  The  kings  com- 
mit fornication  with  her  (vs.  2),  and  then,  when  God's 
time  comes  for  judgment,  tliey  burn  her  with  fire.  Ys. 
16;  Lev.  xxi.  9. 

11.  It  was  God's  mercy  Avhicli  exposed  the  Chris- 
tian church,  almost  from  the  beginning  of  its  existence 
and  for  the  first  three  hundred  ^^ears  of  its  career,  to 
the  bitter  persecution  of  the  civil  power.  The  line  was 
thus  clearly  drawn  between  Christ  and  Caesar,  and  it 
was  demonstrated  that  the  church  could  live,  not  only 
without  alliance  with  the  state,  but  in  spite  of  all  its 
power  and  hate.  The  church  was  taught  that  the 
world  is  enmity  against  God,  and  that  any  conformity 
to  it,  or  alliance  with  it,  could  only  end  in  the  corrup- 
tion and  slavery  of  the  church,  as  the  Israelites  of  old 
were  taught  as  to  Egypt,  Assyria,  etc. 

12.  The  seer  in  Patmos  saw  (Rev.  xiii.  3)  one  of  the 
heads  of  the  beast  "  as  it  were  wounded  to  death,  and 
his  deadly  wound  was  healed."  If  the  civil  power  is 
symbolized  as  a  beast,  only  so  far  as  it  is  opposed  to 
the  church  of  God,  then  the  deadly  wound  signified  its 
dropping  for  a  season  its  wonted  appearance  of  hos- 
tility to  the  cause  and  kingdom  of  God,  to  cease  for  a 
time  to  act  as  a  beast ;  the  which  it  could  only  do  by^ 
assuming  either  a  truly  religious  or  a  professedly  re- 
ligious character.  That  this  character  was  only  pro- 
fessedly religious  seems  to  be  indicated  by  the  words 
"  as  it  were,"  and  by  the  healing  of  the  wound.  This 
characteristic  is  intended  to  apply,  probably,  to  the 
whole  period  of  the  seventh  head.  In  the  correspond- 
ing passage  in  chap.  xvii.  8,  11,  the  revealing  angel 
says  to  John :  "  The  beast  that  thou  sawest  loas  and  is 
7iot;''  and  again  he  calls  it  "the  beast  that  was,  and  is 
not,  and  yet  is;"  and  again,  in  vs.  11,  "the  beast  that 


The  Power  Ecclesiastical  and  Civil.        181 

was,  and  is  not,"  is  said  to  be  the  eighth  and  of  the 
seven.  These  expressions  seem  to  indicate  the  para- 
doxical character  of  the  beast,  a  beast  passing  into  the 
form  of  the  woman,  or,  in  unsymboHcal  language,  the 
world-power,  which  is  essentially  the  enemy  of  God, 
becoming  or  pretending  to  be  Christian.  The  healing 
of  the  deadly  wound  indicates  the  reassumption,  or 
the  breaking  forth  again,  of  its  hostility  to  the  cause 
and  kingdom  of  Christ.  Its  profession  of  Christ's  re- 
ligion has  not  changed  its  nature.  It  is  still  possessed 
of  the  spirit  of  a  beast ;  it  shows  itself  to  be  a  part  of 
the  kingdom  of  darkness,  of  which  the  old  serpent,  the 
dragon,  the  devil,  Satan,  is  the  head  and  prince  (Rev. 
xii.  9 ;  xiii.  2,  4) ;  the  true  successor  of  Cain,  Nimrod, 
Nebuchadnezzar,  and  the  Edomite  Herods.  Whether 
Nebuchadnezzar,  or  Cyrus,  or  Antiochus  EpiphaneS, 
or  Domitian,  or  Constantine  is  the  reigning  monarch, 
the  spirit  of  the  power  is  the  same,  the  spirit  of  the 
world,  which  is  enmity  against  God.  Hence  all  these 
powers  were  seen  by  Nebuchadnezzar  in  one  image; 
and  in  Revelation  xiii.  John  sees  the  first  three  beasts 
of  Daniel  (chap,  vii.)  combined  in  the  fourth  and  last. 
(See  Auberlen's  Daniel  and  the  Revelation^  and  Fair- 
bairn  on  Projjhecy.) 

13.  This  deadly  wound  of  the  beast,  this  apparent 
change  in  the  character  of  the  civil  power  in  its  rela- 
tion to  the  church,  took  place,  or  was  first  exemplified, 
in  the  conversion  of  Constantine  the  Great,  and  in  his 
patronage  of  the  church  in  the  'first  quarter  of  the 
fourth  century.  The  system  of  that  emperor  was  only 
a  christianized  paganism,  as  the  result  showed.  Re- 
ligion was  still  considered  a  part  of  the  machinery  of 
the  state.  The  only  difference  was  that  Christianity 
was  substituted  for  paganism,  and  the  God  of  the 
Christians  for  Jupiter  and  the  whole  herd  of  divinities 
in  the  Pantheon.  It  was  the  old  theory  of  the  first 
centuries  of  the  Roman  republic  with  a  new  applica- 
tion.    In  primeval  Rome  everything  was  moulded  by 


13^  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

religion.  Their  lihri  rituaJes  (to  the  Eomans  what  the 
Mosaic  ritual  was  to  the  Hebrews),  according  to  Festus 
(See  Legare  s  Essay  on  Roman  Legislation) ,  "taught  the 
rites  with  which  cities  are  to  be  founded  and  altars  and 
temples  dedicated ;  the  holiness  of  the  walls  of  towns ; 
the  law  relating  to  their  gates ;  how  tribes,  wards  and 
centuries  are  to  be  distributed ;  armies  organized  and 
arrayed,  and  other  like  things  relating  to  peace  and 
war.  The  same  influence  extended  itself  over  the  very 
soil  of  the  Eoman  territory,  and  made  it,  in  the  tech- 
nical language  of  their  augury,  one  vast  temple.  It 
was  consecrated  by  the  auspices ;  it  could  become  the 
property  only  of  one  who  had  the  auspices,  that  is,  a 
patrician,  a  Roman,  properly  so  called ;  once  set  apart 
and  conveyed  away,  it  was  irrevocably  alienated,  so 
that  sales  of  the  domain  were  guaranteed  by  religion, 
and  it  was  sacreligious  to  establish  a  second  colony  on 
the  place  dedicated  to  a  first.  The  city,  by  its  origi- 
nal inauguration  was  also  a  temple;  its  gates  and 
walls  were  holy ;  its  pomoerium  was  unchangeable  until 
higher  auspices  had  suspended  those  under  which  it 
Avas  first  marked  out.  Every  spot  of  ground  might 
become,  by  the  different  uses  to  which  it  was  applied, 
sacred  {sacer),  holy  (sanctus),  religious  {religiosus). 
The  first  agrimensor,  says  Niebuhr,  was  an  augur,  ac- 
companied by  Tuscan  priests  or  their  scholars.  From 
the  foundation  of  the  city  the  sacredness  of  the  pro- 
perty was  shadowed  forth  in  the  god  Terminus,  and  that 
of  contracts  protected  by  an  apotheosis  of  faith  {fdes). 
In  short,  the  worthy  Roman  lived,  moved  and  had  his 
being,  as  the  Greek  writers  observe,  in  religion."  How 
striking  the  resemblance,  in  this  description,  of  many 
things  to  corresponding  features  in  Judaism.  The 
grand  difference  is,  that  Judaism  was  a  theocracy  and 
Romanism  an  anthropocracy.  In  the  one  there  was  a 
real  consecration  to  God;  in  the  other  a  real  conse- 
cration only  to  the  glory  of  man.  But  here  we  find 
the  germ  of  the  Erastianism  of  Constantine.     So  far  is 


The  Power  Ecclesiastical  and  Civil.        133 

it  from  being  true,  that  the  union  of  the  church  and 
the  state  was  the  work  of  Christian  priests.  It  was  the 
work,  remotely,  of  the  "lawyer  priests"  of  primeval 
Eome,  an  oriental  caste  transmitted  to  the  Romans 
through  Tuscany,  at  once  by  inheritance  and  by  edu- 
cation (See  Legare  ut  siij).),  and  proximately  of  the 
jurisconsults  of  Constantine.  Subsequently  the  system 
was  reduced  to  a  more  formal  shape,  and  hardened  by 
the  lawyers  of  Theodosius  (A.  D.  379-'95)  and  Justinian, 
(A.  D.  527-'65.)  ' 

14.  Its  Pagan  origin  and  character  was  soon  be- 
trayed. The  church  began  to  be  moulded  by  the 
state  in  government,  worship,  and  even  in  faith.  It  is 
necessary  that  the  inferior  should  be  moulded  by  the 
superior.  Hence  the  ecclesiastical  hierarchy  corres- 
ponding with  the  civil  hierarchy  of  the  empire.  Hence 
the  temples,  altars,  festivals,  images,  lustrations,  sacri- 
fices, incense ;  in  a  word,  the  pomp  and  pageantry  and 
hollowness  of  the  paganized  Christian  w^orship.  (See 
Middleton  s  Letter  from  liome,  b.  1683,  d.  1750.)  Hence 
the  persecutions  of  the  faithful  who  refused  to  recognize 
this  paganized  Christianity  as  the  religion  of  the  crucified 
Nazarene.  The  autonomy  of  the  church  disappeared, 
and  she  became  the  slave  of  the  civil  power.  The 
nature  of  the  beast  passed  into  the  woman  and  the 
woman  became  the  adulteress  riding  upon  the  beast. 

15.  In  the  coui'se  of  time  a  reaction  came,  and  the 
human  mind,  refusing  to  rest  in  the  center  of  truth, 
swung  to  the  opposite  extreme,  still  holding  to  the 
union  of  the  spiritual  and  the  temporal,  but  asserting 
the  supremac}^  of  the  spiritual.  The  w^oman  would  not 
only  ride  upon  the  beast  and  be  carried  by  it,  but 
would  govern  and  guide  it  according  to  her  own  will. 
This  change  began  with  the  polic}^  of  the  Carlovingian 
line  of  monarchs  (began  752  A.  D.)  and  their  am- 
bitious attempts  to  revive  the  Roman  empire  in  the 
West.  In  order  to  secure  the  patronage  and  assistance 
of  the  church,  they  conferred  civil  authority  and  terri- 


134  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

tory  -Qpori  ecclesiastics,  and  the  pope  himself  became  a 
feudatory  of  Pepin  (A.  D.  752-'58),  Charlemagne  (A.  D. 
768-814),  and  their  successors  in  the  holy  German  Eoman 
empire.  And  here  did  vaulting  ambition  overleap  itself. 
This  very  policy  was  the  occasion  of  the  wars  between 
the  popes  and  the  emperors,  which  kept  the  world  in 
an  uproar  during  the  middle  ages;  the  church  gain- 
ing more  and  more  power  as  a  temporal  and  civil  insti- 
tute under  the  direction  of  Hildebrand  (A.  D.  1073- 
1085)  and  Innocent  III.  (A.  D.  1198-1216),  and  others, 
reaching  the  summit  of  its  audacitv  under  Boniface 
VIII.  (A.  D.  1294-1303),  and  then  gradually  yielding 
again  to  the  temporal  power.  Thus  the  popery  of 
the  middle  ages  became  the  Nemesis  of  the  Erastian- 
ism  or  Paganism  of  Constantihe,  Theodosius  and  Jus- 
tinian. But  l)oth  popes  and  emperors  united  in  per- 
secuting the  witnesses  of  Christ's  supremacy. 

16.  Then  came  the  earthquake  of  the  Reformation. 
But  this  did  not  dissolve  the  union  of  church  and  state. 
"Luther  had  some  glimpses  of  the  grand  truth  that  the 
S})iritual  kingdom  of  Jesus  Clirist  is  sometliing  separ- 
ate from  and  independent  of  the  civil  government  or- 
dained of  God  the  Creator  in  tlie  hands  of  CjTPsar ;  but, 
driven  to  shelter  himself  under  the  protection  of  the 
monarch  who  was  ambitious  to  rid  himself  of  the  au- 
thority of  the  pope,  yet  ecpially  jealous  of  such  an  'nn- 
perruinin  inijyerio  as  a  completely  organized  spiritual 
government  in  the  hands  of  the  church,  Luther  was 
obliged,  as  he  thought,  to  sacrifice  a  part  of  the  spir- 
itual prerogatives  of  the  church  for  protection  against 
the  power  of  the  pope."  (Robinson's  speech  at  Cin- 
cinnati, November  8th,  1866.)  Calvin  had  a  much 
clearer  conception  of  the  church's  autonomy  than  Lu- 
ther, and  would  allow  no  interference  on  the  part  of 
the  state  with  the  discipline  of  the  church.  Yet  he  was 
bred  a  lawyer;  he  had  studied  the  Pandects,  and  al- 
lowed the  authority  of  Tribonian  (A.  D.  545)  to  obscure 
the  interpretation  of  that  word  of  God,  to  which  he  ad- 


The  Power  Ecclesiastical  and  Civil.  135 

lieretl  with  a  tenacity  and  fidelity  unsurpassed  by  man. 
If  Calvin  had  been  a  German  instead  of  a  Frenchman, 
he  probably  wonld  not  have  seen  so  much  of  the  truth 
as  he  did  see,  for  Ultramontanism  had  the  ascendency 
in  Germany.  But  even  his  imperial  mind  could  not 
emancipate  itself  from  the  thraldom  of  "  the  spirit  of 
the  age." 

17.  His  influence,  however,  is  seen  in  the  original 
Puritan  party  of  England,  in  the  struggle  for  religious 
and  civil  liberty  in  Holland  and  the  other  states  of  the 
Netherlands,  and  especially  in  Scotland.  The  Reforma- 
tion in  Scotland  from  the  first,  more  than  any  of  the 
movements  of  the  sixteenth  century,  rested  upon  the 
theory  of  the  autonomy  of  the  spiritual  commonwealth, 
and  it  seemed  to  be  the  special  mission  of  its  martyrs 
to  testify  for "  Christ's  crown  and  covenant,"  against 
the  lofty  claims  of  the  temporal  sovereign.  But  after 
all  the  testimonies  of  its  martyrs,  and  a  hundred  year^ 
of  suffering,  the  sed-uctive  strategy  of  Carstairs^'"  and 
the  political  Protestantism  of  William  and  Marj^,  and 
the  settlement  of  the  Scottish  kingdom  under  Queen 
Anne,  proved  more  powerful  than  the  testimony  of  the 
martyrs,  and  at  last  subjugated  the  Scottish,  as  well  as 
the  English  churches,  under  the  yoke  of  Caesar,  leaving 
the  piety  and  earnest  love  of  the  truth,  which  might 
afterward  be  generated  by  her  doctors,  to  fly  off  in  se- 
cession after  secession  till  the  present  day."  {liobinson 
ut  siipra.  See  also  his  lecture  on  The  American  Theory 
of  Church  and  State  before  the  Maryland  Institue, 
Baltimore.)  The  fundamental  defect  in  the  position  of 
the  Scotch  church  (a  defect  to  which  the  Free  Church, 
notwithstanding  its  noble  testimony,  still  clings),  is  the 
doctrine  that  the  state  ought  to  support  the  church  by 
its  revenues  ;  as  if  it  were  possible  for  the  church,  thus 
supported  by  the  state,  to  be  independent. 

*0n  Carstairs,  see  Macauliy's  History  of  England,  III.,  p.  269,  aud 
Hetherington''s  Hist  of  the  Church  of  Scotland^  cliap.  viii.  (pp.  300  aud 
304,  Vol.  V.  of  Carter's  Ed.,  New  York,  1844.) 


136  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

18.  The  Confession  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  be- 
ing composed  under  the  influence  of  the  Scotch  com- 
missioners and  of  Englishmen  brought  up  in  the  Eras- 
tian  establishment,  could  not  of  course  be  expected  to 
teach  the  truth  more  purely,  on  this  subject,  than  the 
Scotch.  Hence  it  was  changed  he/ore  it  ivas  adopted 
by  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States  of 
America  (1788),  as  you  have  been  informed  in  a  previ- 
ous lecture. 

19.  Such  being  the  history  of  this  subject  in  other 
countries  and  ages,  we  come  now  to  notice,  very  briefly, 
its  history  in  the  United  States.  Most  of  the  colo- 
nists Avho  came  to  this  country,  came  of  course  with 
the  ideas  of  church  and  state  which  prevailed  in  the 
lands  from  which  they  came.  They  had  learned  some- 
thing from  persecution,  but  they  had  much  still  to 
learn.  The  New  England  Puritans  established  a  sort  of 
theocracy,  thus  rushing  to  the  other  extreme  from  the 
Erastian  paganism  from  which  they  had  suffered  so 
much  ;  the  pulpit  became  the  expounder  of  public 
policy  and  of  the  law  of  the  land  ;  and  the  church  was 
filled  with  hypocrites  and  pretenders  to  godliness. 
Roger  Williams  and  the  Baptists  suffering  persecution 
in  Massachusetts,  betook  themselves,  after  the  manner 
of  minorities  when  oppressed  by  majorities,  to  the 
ramparts  of  sound  principles,  and  founded  the  settle- 
ment of  Rhode  Island  (1635)  in  which  they  proclaimed 
not  only  religious  toleration,  but  religious  liberty.  The 
Huguenots  were  quiet;  the  Dutch  were  liberal;  the 
Scotch  and  Scotch-Irish,  who  were  the  chief  instru- 
ments in  moulding  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  this 
country,  were  the  next,  after  Roger  Williams,  to  pro- 
claim the  true  theory  of  the  relations  of  church  and 
and  state.  Waddell,  "  the  blind  preacher,"  William 
Graham,  Stanhope  Smith,  and  the  old  Hanover  Pres- 
bytery in  Virginia,  on  the  ecclesiastical  side,  with 
Thomas  Jefferson  on  the  civil  side,  who,  first  of  all  the 
statesmen  in  history,  caught  the  true  idea,  co-operated 


The  Power  Ecclesiastical  and  Civil.         137 

in  establishing  what  is  sometimes  called  the  Virginia 
doctrine,  which  Mr.  Stuart  Eobinson  (accommodating 
the  language  of  Melville)  expresses  thas  :  "  There  be 
two  republics  in  this  nation,  one  the  civil  republic  of 
the  United  States,  of  which  the  man  in  the  White  House 
is  the  head;  the  other  the  spiritual  commonwealth, 
of  which  Jesus  Christ  is  the  head,  with  which  the  man 
in  the  White  House  has  nothing  to  do,  but  to  protect 
the  persons  and  property  of  its  subjects,  as  that  of 
other  citizens."  (Cincinnati  speech.)  This  is  the  theory 
which  was  supposed  to  be  the  theory  of  the  United 
States,  as  well  as  of  Virginia,  up  to  the  period  of  the 
war.  It  was  found,  explicitly  or  im])licitly,  in  all  the 
constitutions  and  bills  of  rights  of  the  States  (with  the 
exception,  j^erhaps,  of  North  Carolina),  and  is  recog- 
nized by  that  provision  of  the  constitution  which  pro- 
hibits the  passage  of  any  law  infringing  upon  the 
rights  of  conscience.  It  is  the  clear  teaching  of' 
the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  and,  I  suppose,  was  uni- 
versally received  by  all  other  denominations,  if  not 
expressly  taught  in  their  public  formularies  and  sym- 
bols. It  is  the  Scotch  theory,  without  the  feature  of 
state  support,  and  with  the  voluntary  principle  instead. 
20.  But  the  history  of  this  country  has  demonstra- 
ted tjiat  a  refined  and  exalted  worldly  civilization 
makes  no  change  in  the  heart  of  man ;  that  he  is  an 
incorrigible  sinner,  and  incurably  disposed  to  walk  in 
the  light  of  his  own  eyes;  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
is  of  no  account  to  him,  except  so  far  as  it  can  be  made 
to  subserve  his  own  lusts.  We  stand  amazed,  notwith- 
standing the  faithful  warnings  of  prophets  and  apos- 
tles, at  the  reappearance  of  the  beast,  and  the  revival 
of  the  maxims  of  Koman  civilians  and  mediaeval  can- 
onists in  the  nineteenth  century,  and  in  "the  freest 
and  most  enlightened  nation  of  the  globe."  We  are 
confounded  when  we  see  the  owls  and  bats  of  the  dark 
ages  flying  about  in  the  blaze  of  this  boasted  period  of 


138  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

illumination,  and  statesmen  and  cliurclimen,  in  an  age 
of  boasted  liberty,  forging  over  again  tlie  chains  and 
fetters  of  the  ages  of  slavery  and  blood.  Saddest  of 
all,  we  see  a  clinrch  which  has  been  accustomed  to 
pride  itself  upon  an  ancestry  martyred  for  Christ's 
crown,  voluntarily  pulling  down  his  ensign  and  running 
up  the  ensign  of  Cresar;  a  church  which  has  testified 
"repentance"  towards  God  and  "faith  towards  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  as  the  burden  of  its  commission, 
now  drivelling  about  "loyalty  and  freedom,"  and  out- 
lawing men  who  are  as  good  as  themselves,  for  no 
other  cause  than  the  holding  of  a  theory  of  the  govern- 
ment which  has  been  held  by  many  of  the  best  and 
wisest  Americans  from  the  beginning.  Once  more, 
then,  the  church  is  called  to  testif}'  for  he  rights  of 
her  only  head  and  king,  Jesus  Christ,  and  for  the 
freedom  and  independence  which  he  has  conferred 
upon  herself  as  the  purchase  of  his  most  precious 
blood.  Once  more  has  she  been  compelled  by  the  as- 
saults of  her  adversaries  to  study  her  own  nature  and 
to  define  her  relation  to  that  other  ordinance  of  God, 
the  state.  These  relations  we  come  now  to  consider 
dogmatically,  as  we  have  already  considered  them 
historically. 

21.  The  church  and  the  state  agree  in  these  three 
points :  1st,  That  they  are  ordained  of  God ;  2nd,  That 
they  are  ordained  for  his  glory;  3rd,  That  they  are  or- 
dained for  the  good  of  mankind. 

22.  They  differ  in  the  following  points :  1st,  In  the 
aspects  and  relations  in  which  God  is  contemplated 
by  them  respectively  as  the  source  of  power _;  2nd,  In 
the  aspects  in  which  man  is  contemplated  by  them  re- 
spectively as  the  ohject  of  power;  3rd,  In  the  rule  by 
which  they  are  to  be  respectively  guided  in  the  exer- 
cise of  power.  Of  these,  in  their  order,  we  now  pro- 
ceed to  treat  more  particularly. 

23.  First,  as  to  the  aspects  and  relations  in  which 
God  as  the  source  ofj^otver  is  contemplated  by  church 


1*HE  Power  Ecclesiastical  and  Civil.         139 

and  state  respectively.  I  observe  that  the  state  is  the 
ordinance  of  God,  considered  as  Creator,  and,  there- 
fore, the  moral  governor  of  mankind,  while  the  chnrch 
is  an  ordinance  of  God,  considered  as  the  Saviour  and 
Kestorer  of  mankind.  We  need  not  dwell  upon  this 
point  here,  as  the  illustration  and  proof  of  it  are  ne- 
cessarily involved  in  the  proof  and  illustration  of  the 
next,  Avhich  is  second,  as  to  the  aspects  and  relations 
in  which  church  and  state,  respectively,  contemplate 
man  as  the  ohject  of  -power,  where  it  is  to  be  noted,  (a), 
that  the  state  is  ordained  for  man  as  man,  the  church 
for  man  as  a  sinner,  under  a  dispensation  of  restora- 
tion and  salvation.  The  state  is  for  the  whole  race  of 
man,  the  church  consists  of  that  portion  of  the  race 
which  is  really,  or  by  credible  profession,  the  media- 
torial body  of  Christ.  The  state  is  a  government  of 
natural  justice;  the  church,  a  government  of  grace. 

24.  The  state  is  ordained  for  man  as  man,  and  is 
ordained  to  realize  the  idea  of  justice.  TVe  find  it  ex- 
isting in  the  germ  when  the  race  consisted  of  one  man 
and  one  woman.  The  woman  was  in  a  state  of  sub- 
ordination to  the  man.  This  subordination  was  not 
the  penal  consequence  of  transgression,  as  is  evident 
from  1  Timothy  ii.  11-14,  where  Paul  argues  that  the 
transgression  was  the  consequence  of  the  violation  by 
the  woman  of  the  order  established  by  heaven,  of 
her  ambitiously  forsaking  her  condition  of  subordina- 
tion, and  acting  as  if  she  were  the  superior  or  the 
equal  of  the  man.  If  it  should  be  asked,  where  was 
the  necessity  or  the  propriety  of  an  order  implying 
subordination  in  beings  who  w^ere  created  in  the  image 
of  God,  in  knowledge,  righteousness,  and  true  holi- 
ness ?  the  answer  is,  that  the  propriety  was  founded 
upon  the  diversity  of  capacity  in  intellect  and  other 
endowments  of  human  nature,  which  it  pleased  God 
should  exist  in  the  man  and  the  Avoman.  If  man  had 
not  fallen,  it  would  still  have  been  his  duty  to  bring 
up  his  children  in  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  to  direct 
12 


140  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

tliem  in  the  way  in  which  they  should  glorify  God; 
albeit  these  children,  by  the  terms  of  the  supposition, 
would  all  have  been  holy  and  without  inclination  to 
go  astray;  nay,  more,  in  no  danger  at  all  of  going 
astray,  as  they  would  havd  been  confirmed  in  the  pos- 
session of  eternal  life  by  the  covenant  with  their  fa- 
ther. In  other  words,  if  all  creatures,  because  they 
are  creatures,  need  direction  from  God  as  to  the  mode 
in  which  they  are  to  glorify  and  enjoy  him,  why  might 
not  this  direction  be  given  through  the  instrumentality 
of  others  as  well  as  immediately  by  God  himself? 
There  is  not  only  no  absurdity  in  such  an  arrange- 
ment, but  there  are  traces  of  the  wonderful  wisdom 
and  goodness  of  the  Creator  in  it.  Society  is  not  an 
unison,  but  an  exquisite  harmony,  a  grand  instrument 
of  various  chords  for  the  harping  of  hymns  and  halle- 
lujahs to  the  God  and  Father  of  all.  Even  among  the 
unfallen  angels,  we  have  reason  to  believe,  there  are 
thrones,  dominions,  principalities,  and  powers — order 
in  the  form  of  a  celestial  hierarchy.  Man  having  fallen, 
however,  and  the  love  which  constituted  the  very' spirit 
and  temper  of  his  mind  having  given  place  to  enmity, 
something  more  than  direction  was  now  necessary.  He 
needed  restraint ;  his  appetites  must  be  bridled  and  co- 
erced. The  law  of  the  two  tables,  which,  in  his  state 
of  innocence  and  uprightness,  had  been  written  upon 
his  lieai't  summarily,  in  the  2^<^''^itlve  and  2)^"ece2)tive  form 
of  loi'e,  must  now  be  written  externally,  in  detail,  upon 
tablets  of  stone,  and  in  a  prohibitory  form,  "  thou  slialt 
noV  ;  and  in  reference  to  the  second  table,  which  pre- 
scribes the  duties  growing  out  of  the  relations  of  man 
to  man,  it  became  necessary  that  overt  acts  of  trans- 
gression which  were  not  only  morally  wrong,  but  in- 
jurious to  society,  should  not  only  be  discountenanced 
by  prohibition,  but  restrained  and  prevented  by  pun- 
ishment.    Hence  arose  a  government  oi  force. 

25.  The  case,  then,  stands  thus :  In  any  condition 
of  our  race,  the  social  nature  of  man  must  have  given 


The  Powek  Ecclesiastical  and  Civil.         141 

rise  to  the  secular  power.  In  a  state  of  innocence  it 
would  have  been  simply  a  directing  power,  a  constitu- 
tion designed  merely  to  carry  out  and  fulfil,  without 
confusion,  the  blind  instincts  or  impulses  of  love,  love 
of  self  and  love  of  neighbor.  In  a  fallen  state,  it  has 
become,  of  necessity,  a  restraining  and  punishing,  as 
well  as  a  directing  power.  But  in  both  conditions  and 
in  both  forms  it  is  an  ordinance  of  God,  "the  author  of 
the  constitution  and  course  of  nature."  It  is  the  nat- 
ure of  man  to  exist  in  society,  and  society  is  necessary 
to  his  existence.  But  society  cannot  exist  without  law 
and  order  of  some  sort.  Therefore  government  is  as 
necessary  to  man  as  society,  and  for  this  reason  is  as 
natural  to  man  as  society.  It  may  not  be  an  original 
endowment  of  man,  but  it  is  natural,  and,  if  natural, 
then  the  ordinance  of  God.  The  perception  of  dis- 
tance by  the  eye  is  not  an  original  endowment  of  man, 
but  the  organ  is  so  constituted  by  God,  that,  in  the* 
course  of  time,  it  necessarily  acquires  it,  and  it  is, 
therefore,  natural  to  man,  and  therefore  the  ordinance 
of  God.  Civil  government,  then,  is  a  branch  or  de- 
partment of  the  moral  government  of  God,  the  Creator 
and  Ruler  over  man.  God  governs  man  by  mechani- 
cal laws,  by  chemical  laws,  by  vital  laws,  and  he  gov- 
erns him  by  civil  laws.  He  who  leaps  from  a  precipice 
or  drinks  a  glass  of  poison,  and  dies,  dies  under  a  law 
of  God,  which  executes  itself.  He  who  murders  his 
brother,  and  dies  on  the  gallows,  dies  under  a  law  of 
God,  which  is  executed  hy  the  hand  of  the  civil  magis- 
trate, the  minister  of  God.  In  all  such  cases  death  is 
a  penalty  inflicted  by  God  for  a  violation  of  a  rule  of 
his  government,  physical  or  moral. 

26.  If  this  be  a  just  view  of  the  subject,  civil  gov- 
ernment is  a  great  moral  institute,  not  a  mere  ex- 
pedient of  human  wdsdom  and  sagacity  for  the  pre- 
vention of  evil.  It  is  this  low,  wretched,  utilitarian 
view  which  has  contributed  its  full  share  to  the  crimes 
and  miseries  of  this  country,  in  which  the  criminal 


142  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

law  was  fast  becoming  as  pure  an  affair  of  expediency 
as  tlie  civil.  But  tlie  government  of  God,  as  Creator, 
is  a  gove-rnment  oi  justice,  and  crime  is  punishable  for 
its  ill-desert;  and  the  civil  magistrate,  who  is  the  min- 
ister of  God  (Roman  xiii.),  while  he  has  no  right,  from 
any  view  of  expediency,  to  inflict  any  punishment  Avhich 
justice  does  not  sanction,  is  bound  to  inflict  the  pun- 
ishment which  justice  requires  and  crime  deserves. 
This  remark  is  needed  for  the  sake  of  one  important 
inference,  and  that  is,  that  every  civil  government  on 
earth  is  bound  explicitly  to  recognize  its  responsibility 
to  God  as  the  moral  governor  of  mankind.  It  is  per- 
fectly monstrous  that  the  power  Avhich  bears  the  sword 
and  exercises  the  awful  prerogative  of  taking  human 
life,  either  in  peace  or  war,  should  not  acknowledge 
itself  to  l)e  the  servant  of  the  sovereign  Lord  of  life 
and  death  ;  that  the  power  which  represents  the  majesty 
of  justice,  should  not  recognize  its  responsibility  to 
him  who  is  the  eternal  foundation  and  standard  of  all 
righteousness.  So  much  for  civil  government  as  the 
ordinance  of  God.  It  regards  man  as  man,  and,  there- 
fore, regards  all  men. 

27.  The  church,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  ordinance 
of  God,  considered  as  the  Saviour  of  men  in  the  person 
of  Jesus  Christ,  his  only  begotten  Son.  It  contem- 
plates man,  hot  simply  as  man,  nor  as  upright  in  his 
original  condition  of  innocence,  nor  simply  as  a  fallen 
creature,  but  as  "  the  prisoner  of  hope,"  or  more  strictly 
still,  as  "the  heir  of  salvation,"  really  or  by  credible 
profession.  It,  therefore,  does  not  contemplate  all 
men,  but  only  those  who  enjoy  a  dispensation  of  grace, 
or  more  strictly  (as  to  its  government)  those  who  pro- 
fess and  call  themselves  Christians. 

28.  We  note  again,  (b),  that  the  state  considers  man 
only  as  to  his  outward  being.  It  protects  the  citizen 
or  the  subject  in  his  pei'son,  his  property,  his  liberty, 
by  punishing  illegal  assaults  upon  either.  Its  pun- 
ishments affect  the  body  and  outward  condition  of  the 


The  Power  Ecclesiastical  and  Civil.  143 

transgressor.  It  compels  obedience  and  punishes  dis- 
obedience by  brute  force.  This  is  the  sanction  of  its 
law.  Its  symbol  is  the  sword.  It  can  have  nothing 
to  do,  therefore,  with  the  faith  of  its  subjects ;  for  faith 
lies  in  the  domain  of  the  spirit,  and  cannot  be  com- 
pelled. The  state  does  not,  and  cannot,  aim  at  holi- 
ness, it  aims  only  at  social  order.  It  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  religion  of  the  citizen,  or  the  loyalty  of  the 
heart,  but  only  Avith  his  obedience  to  the  laws,  affecting 
the  body  and  the  outward  estate.  It  cannot  require 
the  citizen  to  approve  and  love  the  laws,  but  only  not 
to  violate  them, 

29.  The  church,  on  the  other  hand,  moves  in  the 
sphere  of  the  spirit.  It  has  nothing  to  do  Avith  the 
bodies,  the  estates,  the  outward  condition  of  mankind. 
Its  sanctions  are  not  corporeal,  involving  the  exercise 
of  brute  force,  but  only  moral  and  spiritual,  appealing 
to  the  judgment,  the  faith,  the  conscience  of  its  mem- 
bers. It  knows  nothing  of  the  sword,  the  dungeon, 
the  lash,  pecuniary  fines,  etc.,  etc.,  but  onl}'  of  argument, 
exhortation,  admonition,  censure,  etc.,  etc.  Its  great 
function  is  to  teach,  to  convince,  to  persuade,  "  to  bear 
witness  of  the  truth."  Its  triumphs  are  the  triumphs 
of  love  ;  it  drags  no  reluctant  captives  at  the  wheels  of 
its  chariot;  the  design  of  its  ordinances,  oracles,  min- 
istry, is  through  the  efficacious  operation  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  bring  its  captives  into  hearty  sympathy  with 
its  king,  and  so  to  give  them  a  share  in  the  glory  and 
exultation  of  the  triumphs  of  the  king.  Its  symbol 
is  the  "keys,"  by  which  it  opens  and  shuts  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  according  as  men  are  believers  or  im- 
penitent. Its  only  sword  is  the  sword  of  the  Spirit, 
which  is  the  word  of  God.  Its  discipline  is  not  the 
punishment  of  an  avenging  judge,  asserting  the  un- 
bending majesty  of  the  law,  but  the  discipline  of  a 
tender  mother,  whose  bowels  yearn  over  the  wa^^ward 
child,  and  who  inflicts  no  pain,  except  for  the  child's 
reformation  and  salvation.     The  authority  of  his  king- 


144  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

clom  is  spiritual.  His  sword  is  a  sword  "  coming  out 
of  his  mouth''  His  voice,  is  "  Son,  give  me  thy  heart "  ; 
"  Repent  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand";  and 
by  the  power  of  his  Spirit,  he  sweetly  constrains  those 
whom  he  chooses  for  members  of  his  kingdom  to  call 
him  "Lord."  He  makes  them  willing  in  the  day  of 
his  power.  They  are  his,  or  profess  to  be  his ;  have, 
or  make  a  credible  profession  of  having,  the  great  law 
of  love  written  upon  their  hearts,  and,  therefore,  need 
more  the  directing  than  the  restraining  power  of  the 
law.  The  whole  discipline  of  the  church  is  based 
upon  the  supposition  of  faith  in  its  members,  so  that 
what  is  of  no  account  in  the  eye  of  the  state,  is 
primary  and  fundamental  in  the  eyes  of  the  church. 
It  is  so  perfectly  obvious,  that  the  employment  of 
force  is  abhorrent,  from  the  whole  nature  and  genius 
of  the  church,  that  even  the  fiends  of  the  "holy  office" 
were  compelled  to  profess  the  greatest  horror  of  shed- 
ding the  blood  of  heretics,  and  piously  turned  them 
over  to  the  secular  arm.  The  Inquisition  was  always, 
in  theory  at  least,  what  every  court  of  the  church  is, 
a  "penitentiary  tribunal,"  a  tribunal  whose  function  is 
not  punishment,  Init  discipline,  not  the  destruction, 
but  the  edification  of  the  offender,  brought  about 
through  his  personal  repentance. 

30.  Tliird.  The  state  and  the  church  differ  in  the 
rule  by  which  they  are  respectively  guided  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  power.  The  constitution  of  the  church  is  a 
divine  revelation  ;  the  constitution  of  the  state  must  be 
determined  by  human  reason  and  the  course  of  provi- 
dential events.  (Assembly  of  1861.)  The  Bible  is  the 
statute-book  of  the  church,  the  visible  kingdom  of 
Christ ;  the  light  of  nature  is  the  guide  of  the  state. 
The  church  has  no  legislative  power,  properly  so- 
called,  but  only  a  power  to  declare  and  obey  the  law 
of  Christ's  kingdom.  The  church  is  only  a  witness, 
and  she  cannot  go  beyond  the  divine  testimony  of  the 
Word;  she  has  no  commission  to  open  her  lips,  but 


The  Power  Ecclesiastical  and  Civil.        145 

with  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord."  All  her  acts  of  govern- 
ment are  acts  of  obedience  to  Christ,  her  only  king. 
As  a  church,  she  owes  no  allegiance  to  any  authority 
but  that  of  Christ  ;  as  his  bride,  she  owes  no  loyalty 
to  any  person  but  him.  Her  members,  as  citizens  or 
subjects,  owe  allegiance  to  the  civil  power,  and  are 
subject  to  it  in  their  bodies  and  estates  ;  but  as  Chris- 
tians, they  know  no  authority  but  Christ's ;  and  if  the 
church  itself  should  enact  laws  against  her  divine  con- 
stitution, her  members  must  appeal  from  her  to  Christ, 
the  king.  The  state  may  adopt  any  form  of  govern- 
ment it  pleases — its  power  is  magisterial  and  impera- 
tive. The  power  of  the  church  being  only  "ministerial 
and  declarative,"  she  must  adopt  the  form  of  govern- 
ment whose  regulative  and  constitutive  principles  are 
revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  her  constitution  and  charter. 
The  life  of  the  state  is  natural,  and  it  is  left  to  create 
an  organization  for  itself.  The  life  of  the  church  is  su- 
pernatural, and  God  prescribes  an  organization  for  it. 
31.  When  we  say  that  the  Bible  is  not  the  rule  for 
the  state,  we  do  not  mean  that  the  state  is  at  lib- 
erty to  disregard  its  teachings.  We  mean  to  affirm 
that  God  has  given  no  commission  to  the  state  to  tes- 
tify to  the  truth  of  Christ's  revelation,  or  to  interpret 
it.  It  is  to  the  church  that  the  lively  oracles  have  heen 
comrnitted  hy  her  divine  Head.  The  church  alone  is 
founded  upon  the  prophets  and  apostles,  Jesus 
Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner  stone.  The 
church  alone  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth.  She 
is  the  woman,  clothed  with  the  sun,  with  the  moon  un- 
der her  feet,  and  upon  her  head  a  crown  of  twelve 
stars.  She  is  the  system  of  candlesticks,  in  the 
midst  of  which  the  King  of  the  kingdom  walks,  and  in 
his  hand  alone  are  the  stars,  the  teachers  and  the 
rulers  of  the  church.  Christ  is  the  luraen  illuminans^  the 
church  is  the  lumen  illuniinatum.  It  is  the  kingdom 
of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  not  the  kingdom  of  the  levia- 
than of  the  state,  which  is  the  light  of  the  world.    This 


146  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

is  the  case  under  the  present  dispensation,  whatever 
may  be  the  case  when  kingdoms  of  this  world  shall  l)e- 
come  the  kingdoms  of  onr  Lord  and  of  his  Christ. 
Hence  the  change  which  has  been  proposed  from  time 
to  time  in  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  so  as 
to  make  that  instrument  acknowledge  the  divine 
authority  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  kingly  office  of 
Christ,  proceeds  upon  a  totally  false  conception  of  the 
sphere  and  functions  of  the  state.  As  the  state  is  the 
ordinance  of  God,  as  creator  and  moral  governor,  and 
is  designed  for  man  as  man,  it  has  nothing  to  do  with 
any  principles  of  religion  but  those  which  belong  to 
man  as  man  :  to  wit,  the  being  of  God  and  a  moral 
government.  To  give  it  any  power  over  the  truths  of 
revealed  religion,  and  over  the  records  which  contain 
those  truths,  is  to  confound  it  with  the  church,  or  what 
is  practically  the  same  thing,  to  abolish  the  church,  ex- 
cept as  an  auxiliary  of  the  state,  in  preserving  order. 
It  becomes  then,  what  iniidel  philosophers  have  repre- 
sented it  to  be,  a  mere  temporary  "crutch." 

32.  The  definition  of  the  church  visible  in  our  Con- 
fession (Chap.  XXV.  Sec.  5,  2),  makes  it  to  consist  of 
those  "who  profess  the  true  religion,  together  with  their 
children."  Now,  if  the  proposed  change  in  the  consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  were  made,  the  state  Avould 
answer  to  this  definition.  It  would  profess  the  "true 
religion."  If  it  should  be  said  that  it  is  but  a  single 
doctrine,  which  the  state  professes,  we  ansAver  again, 
(a),  that  it  is  a  confession  fully  as  comprehensive  as" 
that  which  the  church  itself  made  for  centuries  under 
its  patriarchal  form ;  (/>),  that  in  itself  it  includes  the 
whole  plan  of  salvation  ;  for  Christ's  kingly  office  is 
based  upon  his  priestly.  It  is  certainly  no  narrower 
than  the  confession  in  Acts  viii.  37,  and  1  Corinthians, 
xii.  3.  It  is  the  very  substance  of  the  teaching  of  the 
whole  gospel  history,  specialty  of  the  first  three  Gos- 
pels. The  burden  of  this  history  is  the  "kingdom  of 
heaven"  and  the  "  Son  of  Man,"  the  king,     (c),  That 


The  Power  Ecclesiastical  and  Civil.        147 

the  principle  upon  which  the  advocates  of  this  amend- 
ment proceed  does  not  hinder  the  state  from  enlarging 
its  confession  at  any  time,  or  from  finally  enlarging 
it  to  the  dimensions  of  the  Westminster  standards. 
Upon  the  whole,  then,  it  appears  that  these  brethren 
would  logically  confound  church  and  state,  by  making 
the  same  definition  answer  to  both  ;  and  really  con- 
found them  by  making  the  state  and  church  both-  wit- 
nesses of  Christ. 

33.  The  only  safety  for  liberty  and  religion  is  in 
rigidly  enforcing  the  maxim  that  the  Bible  is  the  2^osi- 
tive  rule  for  the  church,  a  negative  rule  for  the  state. 
The  state  may  do  whatever  the  Bible  does  not  forhkl. 
The  church  may  do  only  what  the  Bible  directs  or  per- 
mits ;  and  where  the  Bible  is  silent,  the  church  must 
be  silent.  Whatever  the  Bible  does  not  grant  is  eo-ipso 
to  the  church  prohibited.  This  distinction  is  al- 
most certain  to  be  overlooked  when  civil  and  ecclesias- 
tical functions  are  mingled,  as  in  England  in  the  days 
of  Hooker  and  Cartwright — Hooker  and  the  court 
party  contending  that  matters  not  expressly  prohibited 
in  the  Scriptures  were  matters  of  lawful  legislation  on 
the  part  of  the  church.  This  approval  of  the  princi- 
ple, that  whatever  is  not  forbidden  is  lawful,  Avas  natu- 
ral enough  to  these  men,  because  the  church  had  been 
subject,  and  continued  to  be  subject,  to  the  civil  power; 
and  the  principle  is  justly  applicable  to  the  state. 
Cartwright  and  the  Puritans  contending,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  the  principle  was  false  in  its  application  to 
the  church;  that  the  Bible  was  the  constitution  and 
charter  of  the  church,  and  consequently  the  silence 
was  prohibition,  or,  in  other  words,  that  all  additions 
to  the  things  in  the  Bible,  if  not  contrary  to  any  par- 
ticular command,  were  contrary  to  the  general  com- 
mand that  "nothing  be  added."  So,  also,  in  the 
United  States,  when  the  church,  forgetting  her  ex- 
clusive relation  to  Christ,  committed  fornication  with 
the  civil  power,  and  abdicated  her  high  dignity  and 


148  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

glory  as  tlie  free  woman,  voluntarily  enslaved  herself 
to  the  state.  We  find  the  church,  on  the  one  hand, 
leaving  her  testimony  and  prescribing  terms  of  com- 
munion not  revealed  in  the  Scriptures ;  and  the  state, 
on  the  other  hand,  transcending  its  sphere  and  usurp- 
ing the  privileges  of  the  church  and  of  Christ.  The 
state,  and  even  a  party  in  the  state,  dictates  (virtually 
at  least)  the  testimony  of  the  church ;  and  the  church 
(or  its  doctors)  insist  that  the  state  also  testify  for  a 
doctrine,  which  she  herself  had  practically  denied,  the 
royal  authority  and  headship  of  Christ.  How  re- 
morseless is  that  unconscious  logic  which  governs  men 
who  have  forsaken,  or  who  are  ignorant  of,  a  conscious 
logic.  The  church  feels  that  there  is  no  great  difference 
between  her  and  the  state,  and,  therefore,  on  the  one 
hand,  acts  upon  the  rule,  that  whatever  is  not  prohib- 
ited is  lawful ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  insists  that  the 
state  shall  adopt  her  lip-service,  and  confess  that  Jesus 
is  the  king.  She  feels  that  Christ  is  no  more  her  king 
than  he  is  the  state's  king,  and  therefore  the  confes- 
sion and  the  legislation  ought  to  be  the  same  in  both. 
HoAv  else  can  we  account  for  the  remarkable  fact,  that 
in  the  very  midst  of  all  the  shameful  subserviency  of 
the  church  to  the  civil  iDOwer,  and  its  superserviceable 
zeal  on  behalf  of  the  government  in  the  midst  of  its 
apostasy  from  true  allegiance  to  Christ,  it  should  in- 
sist upon  the  state  amending  its  constitution,  so  as  to 
confess  Christ  to  be  a  king.  True,  a  like  proposition  Avas 
made  in  the  Southern  church,  and  in  the  midst  of  great 
political  excitement,  when  the  state  loomed  out  in  pro- 
portions vast  enough  to  fill  nearly  the  whole  field  of 
vision.  But  it  has  been  buried  effectually,  and  that, 
too,  because  deemed  inconsistent  with  the  Scriptural 
doctrine  of  church  and  state. 

34.  This  view  of  the  relation  of  the  Scriptures  and 
of  the  truth  they  reveal  to  church  and  state  respect- 
ively, is,  we  think,  clearly  taught  in  John  xviii.  36,  37. 
Jesus  answered,  "My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world;  if 


The  Power  Ecclesiastical  and  Civil.         149 

my  kingdom  were  of  this  world,  then  would  my  ser- 
vants light  that  I  should  not  be  delivered  to  the  Jews; 
but  now  is  my  kingdom  not  from  hence.  Pilate, 
therefore,  said  unto  him,  Art  thou  a  king,  then? 
Jesus  answered.  Thou  sayest  that  I  am  a  king.  To 
this  end  was  I  born,  and  for  this  cause  came  I  into 
the  world,  that  I  should  bear  witness  unto  the  truth. 
Every  one  that  is  of  the  truth  heareth  my  voice."  1. 
Jesus  teaches  us  that  his  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world, 
either  as  to  its  origin  or  its  nature.  2.  That  it  is 
not,  therefore,  a  kingdom  of  force,  but  of  persuasion, 
founded  upon  the  conviction  of  the  truth.  Its  great 
glory  is  internal,  the  possession  of  the  truth ;  its  great 
external  feature  is  "bearing  witness  to  the  truth."  The 
truth  is  the  means  by  which  this  kingdom  is  established 
and  extended,  and  the  only  subjects  it  recognizes  are 
those  who  are  "of  the  truth,"  and  all  such,  are  its  sub- 
jects. 3.  That  this  opposition  between  his  kingdom  and 
the  kingdom  of  this  world  (which  Pilate  represented), 
should  last  during  the  dispensation  of  the  calling  of 
a  people  out  from  among  the  Gentiles.  '^Novj  is  my 
kingdom  not  from  hence."  Now,  if  a  commission  has 
been  given  to  civil  governments  to  profess  the  truth  of 
Christ,  how^  could  Christ  say  that  his  kingdom  differed 
from  the  kingdoms  of  the  w^orld  in  this  very  respect  ? 
The  ideas  of  "the  truth"  and  "the  sw^ord"  are  set  over 
against  each  other.  A  kingdom  of  force  is  not  a  king- 
dom of  truth,  and  vice  versa.  This  is  the  very  point 
of  the  contrast  between  the  tw^o  kingdoms,  as  Christ 
presents  it.  And  the  question  of  Pilate,  "What  is 
truth  ?  "  taken  in  connection  with  the  following  declar- 
ation to  the  Jews,  "I  find  no  fault  in  Mdi,"  shows 
that  he  understood  this  much,  that  Christ's  kingdom 
was  a  totally  different  thing  from  that  of  C?esar.  He 
understood  the  difference  better  than  many  Christian 
kings,  and  even  Christian  churches,  have  understood 
it  in  later  times.  Bearing  witness  to  the  truth,  theie- 
fore,  is  the  function  of  Christ's  kingdom,  not  the  func- 


l50  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

tion  of  the  kingdom  of  this  world.  It  may  do  very 
well  for  a  Saracen  to  talk  <>f  propagating  the  truth  by 
the  sword,  but  it  is  a  shame  for  a  Christian  to  think  of 
force  in  connection  with  the  truth.  Only  they  who  are 
"born  of  the  truth"  and  "of  the  spirit  of  the  truth" 
can  "  obey  the  truth  "  and  "  hear  the  king's  voice."  The 
sword  has  often  silenced,  but  never  convinced  men. 

35.  The  idea  of  a  Christian  nation,  which  is  associ- 
ated with  this  amendment  of  the  constitution,  is,  as 
has  been  already  suggested,  a  false  and  impracticable 
idea  during  the  present  condition  of  trial,  testimony, 
and  conflict.  The  Jews  were  a  ^'jjeculiar  people"  in 
this  respect,  and  were,  therein,  a  type  of  the  Christian 
church.  The  conception  of  the  state  which  prophecy 
generally  gives  us  is  that  of  an  organism  operating  by 
brute  force,  and  it  is  generally  represented  in  an  atti- 
tude of  opposition  to  the  church  of  Christ.  Hence  we 
find  those  civil  governments  which  have  undertaken  to 
"bear  witness  to  the  truth"  have  usually  denied  the 
truth  and  persecuted  its  professors.  And  even  where 
civil  governments  make  no  such  pretensions,  their  pol- 
icy, both  domestic  and  foreign,  demonstrates  that  they 
are  "of  the  earth,  earthy,"  "kingdoms  of  this  world," 
and  not  of  the  Lord  and  of  his  Christ.  We  must  wait 
for  the  sounding  of  the  seventh  trumpet,  in  order  to 
see  a  Christian  nation  or  a  Christian  government.  Till 
then  civil  government  will  be,  in  the  main,  what 
Hobbes,  its  worshipper,  represents  it,  a  leviathan. 

36.  It  may  not  be  amiss  to  add  a  word  or  two  more 
upon  the  use  which  may  be  legitimately  made  of  the 
Scriptures  by  the  state.  1.  In  the  first  place,  the  light 
of  nature  and  reason,  which  is  the  guide  of  the  state,  is 
made  clear  by  the  revealed  will  of  God.  The  true 
statesman  Avill  seek  light  from  every  possible  quarter. 
As  he  will  enlarge  his  views  by  the  study  of  the  politi- 
cal writings  of  Plato,  Aristotle  and  Cicero,  and  by  the 
study  of  the  great  historians  of  Greece  and  Rome,  as 
well  as  those  of  modern  states,  so  he  will  not  neglect 


The  Power  Ecclesiastical  and  Civil.         151 

the  laws  of  Moses,  nor  the  striking  biblical  histories  in 
which  the  operation  of  those  laws  is  exemplified.  And 
upon  many  points  of  civil  regulation  he  will  find  that 
the  Bible  sustains  the  conclusions  of  reason  and  ex- 
perience. For  example,  in  respect  to  the  justice  and 
expediency  of  capital  punishment  for  the  crime  of 
murder,  the  Bible  not  only  gives  its  sanction  to  this 
penalty,  but  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  civil  magistrate, 
as  the  sword-bearer,  to  inflict  it.  It  represents  the  land 
in  which  murder  is  not  thus  punished,  as  "  polluted 
with  blood,"  and  thereby  provoking  the  judgment  of 
heaven.  So  also  as  to  the  lawfulness  of  war,  and  of  the 
profession  of  a  soldier.  The  sword-bearer  is  bound  to 
wage  defensive  war;  to  punish  the  invader,  and  to 
protect  the  lives  and  property  of  the  people,  upon  the 
same  principle  upon  which  he  punishes  the  individual 
murderer.  According  to  the  light  of  nature,  interpret- 
ed by  the  Scriptures,  the  Quaker  theory  of  war  is  not 
merely  a  sickly  sentimentalism,  but  a  rebellion  against 
the  organized  law  of  society  and  government.  The 
law  of  marriage  is  another  example.  The  Bible  gives 
us,  in  the  account  of  the  creation  of  man,  as  male  and 
female  (one  man  and  one  woman,  the  one  sex  as  the 
complement  of  the  other),  the  true  idea  which  should 
govern  all  civil  legislation  concerning  this  relation.  It 
shows  the  inexpediency  of  polygamy.  In  assuming, 
further,  a  community  of  life  l)etween  the  husband  and 
the  wife,  it  makes  the  promiscuous  intercourse  of  the 
sexes  a  mondrous  crime  against  nature,  and  so  con- 
firnis  a  physiological  law,  Avhicli  has  been  established 
by  observation  and  experience.  It  settles,  also,  the 
question  of  independent,  marital  rights. 

37.  In  the  second  place,  the  Bible  rectifies  the  teach- 
ings of  the  light  of  nature.  In  the  case  of  a  weekly 
rest,  for  example,  it  teaches  that  such  a  rest,  like  the 
institution  of  marriage,  belongs  to  man  as  man,  was 
ordained  before  his  fall,  and  is  necessary  to  his  well 
being.  Beason  and  experience  have  amply  demon- 
13 


152  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

strated  the  same  truth,  that  the  "  Sabbath  was  made 
for  man " ;  but  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  fact  would 
have  been  recognized  by  the  light  of  nature  alone ;  and 
Christian  governments,  so-called,  habitually  violate 
reason  and  experience  in  their  legislation  concerning  a 
weekly  rest.  The  French,  at  the  close  of  the  last  cen- 
tury, abolished  it  altogether,  and  with  what  results  all 
the  world  knows. 

38.  In  the  third  place,  every  man  who  has  received 
this  revelation  is  bound  to  accept  it  as  a  revelation 
from  God,  and  to  regulate  his  faith  and  practice  by  its 
authority,  either  in  a  ]30sitive  or  negative  way.  Touch- 
ing the  whole  matter  of  the  method  of  salvation,  the 
whole  question  as  to  what  is  necessary  to  be  believed 
or  done,  and  all  that  is  necessary  to  be  believed  or 
done,  in  order  to  salvation  and  eternal  life,  the  Scrip- 
tures are  a  full,  complete  and  j^ositive  guide.  Touch- 
ing the  life  that  now  is,  the  conditions  necessary  to 
sustain  the  being  or  promote  the  well-being  of  society, 
agriculture,  commerce,  manufactures,  civil  and  crimi- 
nal laws,  the  man,  if  he  be  a  civil  magistrate,  or  what- 
ever else,  is  to  be  governed  by  the  negative  authority 
of  the  Bible.  He  can  do  anything  which  the  Bible 
does  not  forhid. 

39.  It  may  be  said  that  this  cannot  be  the  theory 
received  by  the  church  and  people  of  this  country  be- 
fore the  war ;  for  it  had  become  the  settled  policy  of 
the  Federal  government  to  have  chaplains  of  Congress 
and  chaplains  of  the  army  and  navy,  and  of  the  army 
and  navy  schools ;  and  of  the  State  governments,  as 
well  as  the  Federal,  to  recognize  the  Sabbath  as  the 
law  of  the  land ;  to  prescribe  the  reading  of  the  Bible 
in  the  public  schools,  etc.  We  answer:  1.  In  refer- 
ence to  the  chaplains,  that  the  government  was  bound 
to  provide  religious  ordinances  for  those  whom  its  ser- 
vice prevented  from  procuring  them  for  themselves, 
but  the  choice  of  religious  teachers  ought  to  have  been 
left  to  the  men  who  were  to  be  placed  under  their  in- 


The  Power  Ecclesiastical  and  Civil.         153 

struction ;  and,  in  respect  to  the  cLaplains  of  Congress, 
the  compensation  ought  to  be  paid  by  the  members 
themselves,  not  out  of  the  government  treasury ;  or,  in 
other  words,  they  ought  to  act  as  men  or  citizens,  not 
as  legislators — in  like  manner  as  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  or  a  Governor  of  a  State,  can  invite  the 
people  to  observe  a  day  of  prayer  or  thanksgiving, 
only  as  a  distinguished  citizen.  If  the  chief  magistrate 
should  issue  a  proclamation  of  this  sort,  as  of  authority, 
without  the  action  of  the  legislative  department  of  the 
government,  he  would  be  guilt}^  of  usurping  the  powers 
of  that  department ;  and  if  the  legislative  and  executive 
departments  together  should  ordain  such  a  day,  both 
would  be  guilty  of  usurping  the  powers  of  the  church.  2. 
In  regard  to  the  use  of  the  Bible  in  the  public  schools,  the 
state  has  no  power  to  ordain  anything  about  the  Bible  in 
the  public  schools,  either  in  the  way  of  prescribing  or 
proscribing  its  use  as  the  word  of  God.  It  might 
ordain  the  use  of  the  English  Bible  as  a  classic  of  the 
English  language,  but,  in  my  judgment,  it  would  not 
be  expedient  to  do  so.  The  public  schools  are  not  de- 
signed to  teach  revealed  religion,  but  the  branches  of 
secular  learning.  The  teaching  of  religion  must  be 
left  to  the  family  and  the  church.  3.  In  regard  to  the 
Sabbath,  we  have  already  alluded  to  one  ground  upon 
which  it  is  recognized  in  civil  law. "  It  may  be  added, 
that  the  state  has  no  right  to  violate  liberty  of  con- 
science ;  and  by  disregarding  the  Sabbath  as  it  does 
in  some  of  its  laws  (in  the  post-office  department,  for 
example),  it  does  violate  the  liberty  of  conscience  by 
excluding  from  offices  those  who  regard  the  Sabbath 
as  a  rest  divinely  ordained.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
absurd  to  contend,  as  Jews  and  infidels  contend,  that 
their  rights  are  violated  by  the  state's  prohibiting 
buying  and  selling  on  the  Sabbath,  unless  they  take  the 
position  that  the  state  has  no  right  to  put  any  re- 
striction whatever  uj)on  trade.     If  they  take  this  po- 

*  See  Soutliern  Presh.  Review  for  Jan.  1880,  pp.  101  if. 


154  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

sition,  they  make  civil  government  an  impossibility. 
Illustrate  the  relation  of  church  and  state  further  by 
reference  to  the  provision  contained  in  the  constitution 
of  some  of  the  States,  forbidding  ministers  to  be  chosen 
to  certain  civil  offices. 

40.  One  more  question  of  great  importance,  as  re- 
cent events  have  shown  it  to  be,  demands  a  brief  no- 
tice. The  respective  jurisdictions  of  church  and  state 
seem  to  meet  in  the  idea  of  duty.  In  many  things,  in 
the  majority  of  things,  this  is  the  occasion  of  no  diffi- 
culty. The  church  enjoins  duty  as  obedience  to  God, 
and  the  state  enforces  it  as  the  safeguard  of  social  or- 
der. But  there  can  be  no  collision  unless  the  one  or 
the  other  blunders  as  to  the  things  that  are  materially 
right.  When  the  state  makes  wicked  laws,  contradict- 
ing the  eternal  principles  of  rectitude,  the  church  is  at 
liberty  to  testify  against  them,  and  humbly  to  petition 
that  they  may  be  repealed.  In  like  manner,  if  the 
church  becomes  seditious  and  a  disturber  of  the  peace, 
the  state  has  the  right  to  abate  the  nuisance.  In  ordin- 
ary cases,  however,  there  is  not  likely  to  be  a  collision. 
The  only  serious  danger  is  where  moral  duty  is  condi- 
tioned upon  a  political  question."  Under  the  pretext  of 
inculcating  duty,  the  church  may  usurp  the  power  to 
determine  the  question  which  conditions  it,  and  that 
is  precisely  what  «he  is  debarred  from  doing.  The 
condition  must  be  given.  She  must  accept  it  from  the 
state,  and  then  her  own  course  is  clear.  If  Cj^sar  is 
your  master,  then  pay  tribute  to  him ;  but  whether  the 
"if"  holds,  whether  Caesar  is  your  master  or  not,  whe- 
ther he  ever  had  any  just  authority,  whether  he  now 
retains  it,  or  has  forfeited  it,  these  are  points  Avhich 
the  church  has  no  commission  to  adjudicate.  (Letter 
of  Assembly  of  1861  to  the  churches  throughout  the 
world.)  This  was  the  view  also  of  Dr.  Hodge  and 
others  who  protested  against  the  "  Spring  Eesolutions" 

*  On*  the  tactics  of  Erastiaus  aud  Ultramontauists  as  to  these  mixed 
questions,  see  Cunningham'' s  Church  Principles,  page  152. 


The  Power  Ecclesiastical  and  Civil.        155 

adopted  by  the  Northern  Assembly  of  1861.  They 
say:  "We  deny  the  right  of  the  General  Assembly  to 
decide  the  political  question,  to  what  government  the 
allegiance  of  Presbyterians,  as  citizens,  is  due,  and  its 
right  to  make  that  decision  a  condition  of  membership 
in  onr  church."  .  .  .  "  The  General  Assembly  in  this 
decided  a  political  question,  and  in  making  that  decis* 
ion  practically  a  condition  of  membership  in  the  church 
has,  in  our  judgment,  violated  the  constitution  of  the 
church,  and  tisurjped  the  prerogative  of  its  divine  Mas* 
ter."  (See  the  paper  quoted  in  Bullock's  address,  page 
10.)  The  Synod  of  Kentucky  of  the  same  year,  under 
the  lead  of  Dr.  R.  J.  Breckinridge  and  Dr.  Humphrey, 
adopted  a  similar  testimony  against  the  action  of  the 
Assembly.  In  this  they  foUow^ed  the  example  of  the 
Master,  who,  though  head  over  all  things  to  the  church, 
refused  to  decide  the  question  of  civil  allegiance,  or  to 
exercise  anj^  other  secular  function.  In  this  they  fol- 
lowed the  example  of  the  church  for  many  generations, 
which  recognized  no  political  questions,  as  questions 
of  allegiance  to  this  or  that  emperor.  It  was  only  af- 
ter the  establishment  of  the  Christian  religion  under 
Constantine,  that  church  questions  became  compli- 
cated with  questions  of  allegiance  and  of  support  to 
this  or  that  government. 

41.  It  is  a  question,  as  the  protestants  of  the  Assem- 
bly of  1861  (Northern)  say,  about  which  Christians 
may  honestly  differ.  In  this  country  it  is  a  question 
about  the  interpretation  of  the  constitution.  The  Fed- 
eralist ministers  of  the  North,  before  the  war,  often 
exchanged  views  with  States-rights  ministers  of  the 
North  and  South  upon  this  question,  and  no  one  of 
them  thought  of  denouncing  the  States-rights  theory, 
either  as  a  heresy  or  as  an  irnmorality ;  nay,  not  a  few 
of  them,  who  are  now  foremost  in  denouncing  us  as 
rebels,  unworthy  to  sit  with  them  at  the  Lord's  table, 
asserted  and  defended  the  right  of  the  South  to  seek 
redress  against  the  tyranny  of  a  majority,  and  one  of 
them  went  so  far  as  to  defend  the  right  of  the  South 


156  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

to  make  war  for  her  own  protection.  (See  Breckinridge 
in  Presljyterial  Critic  for  Jnly,  1855.)  Surely  it  is  an 
astonnding  spectacle  to  see  this  church  fall  so  sud- 
denly, headlong,  down  from  the  very  battlements  of 
heaven  into  the  boiling  abyss  of  partisan  political  pas- 
sion, hatred,  and  excess.  A  solemn  warning  to  us  all 
to  "  watch  and  pray,  lest  Ave  enter  into  temptation." 

42.  The  foregoing  views  of  the  relations  of  church 
and  state,  of  the  indispensable  necessity  of  each  mov- 
ing in  its  own  orbit  and  attending  to  its  own  concerns, 
have  been  fully  vindicated  by  the  history  of  this  coun- 
try. The  church  in  the  North  became  corrupt;  the 
glory  of  Christ  was  sacrificed  to  the  interests  of  Caesar ; 
the  lovely  fruits  of  charity  perished  in  the  storm  of 
political  prejudice  and  passion ;  the  unclean  spirit  of 
the  world  took  possession  of  the  temple  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  the  church,  instead  of  being  a  sequestered 
and  quiet  retreat  for  the  heart  weai-y  of  strife  and  tur- 
moil, became  itself  the  scene  of  strife  and  turmoil.  As 
its  great  type,  the  nation  of  Israel,  dwelt  in  peace, 
while  the  surrounding  nations  were  convulsed,  so  long 
as  Israel  was  true  to  its  vocation  as  a  peculiar  people 
and  separate  from  the  nations,  but  became  subject  to 
the  dangers  and  calamities  of  those  nations,  even  in  a 
higher  degree,  when  it  formed  entangling  alliances 
with  them,  so  also  the  church  in  this  land,  b}'  renounc- 
ing her  dignity  and  safety  as  an  organism  entirely  sep- 
arate from  the  state,  became  subject  to  the  miseries  of 
her  ally.  Better,  a  thousand  times  better,  would  it 
be  for  her  to  be  wasted  by  the  fire  and  sword  of  the 
beast,  than  to  ride  upon  it  and  be  carried  hither  and 
thither  by  it,  or,  in  other  wards,  to  renounce  her  alle- 
giance to  her  royal  spouse  and  become  a  harlot. 

XIY. 

Other  Theoeies  of  Chuech  and  State. 

1st,  That  of  alliance.  The  great  expounder  of  this 
theory  is  Bishop  Warburton  (in  his  treatise  entitled 


Other  Theories  of  Church  and  State.        157 

Alliance  heticeen  CJuvrch  and  Stated.  It  is  briefly  as 
follows  (see  Southern  Preshyterian  Beview,  Vol.  III.,  p. 
214,  October,  1849):  "Church  and  state  are  originally 
both  independent  and  sovereign  societies,  having  dif- 
ferent ends  in  view,  and  hence  not  clashing,  although 
the  same  persons  may  be  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
both.  The  office  of  the  state  is  to  provide  for  the  teni- 
jjoral  interests  of  man.  That  of  the  church,  for  his 
eternal  interests.  The  care  of  the  one  is  confined  to 
the  lody,  that  of  the  other  is  directed  to  the  soul.  The 
one  looks  upon  offences  as  crimes,  the  other  takes  cog- 
nizance of  them  as  vices  and  as  sins.  Now,  as  civil 
society  can  only  restrain  from  open  transgression,  nor 
always  from  this  without  opening  the  way  to  crimes 
still  more  flagitious ;  as  it  cannot  enforce  the  duties  of 
imperfect  obligation;  and  further,  often  inflames  the 
appetites  it  proposes  to  correct ;  and  as  religion,  hav- 
ing the  sanction  of  rewards  (while  civil  government 
has  only  that  of  punishment),  exactly  supplies  these 
defects ;  so  the  church  becomes  necessary  as  a  com- 
plement to  the  state.  The  state,  therefore,  proposes 
to  the  church  a  union  for  their  mutual  benefit,  and 
this  union  is  called  an  '  alliance,'  to  indicate  the  origi- 
nal sovereignty  of  the  parties.  By  this  alliance  the 
state  pledges  itself  to  endow,  protect,  and  extend  the 
church,  and  the  church  to  lend  her  whole  influence  to 
the  state.  The  reciprocal  concessions  are,  that  the 
church  resigns  her  supremacy  by  constituting  the  civil 
ruler  her  supreme  head,  and  by  submitting  her  laws  to 
the  state's  approval ;  and  the  state,  in  compensation, 
gives  to  the  church  a  coactive  power  for  the  reforma- 
tion of  manners,  and  secures  her  a  seat  and  represen- 
tation in  the  national  council.  By  this  alliance  the 
civil  magistrate  gets  additional  reverence,  and  the 
church  a  power  which  does  not  belong  to  her." 

In  reference  to  this  theory  it  is  sufficient  to  sa}^ :  1st, 
That  the  church  has  no  "sovereignty,"  and,  therefore, 
could  form  no  such  "  alliance."  2nd,  That  while  it  is 
true  that  she  supplies  the  deficiencies  of  civil  govern- 


158  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

ment,  it  is  also  true  that  she  does  this  most  e£fectually 
when  she  is  untrammelled  and  uncorrupted  by  any 
such  raesalliance,  as  all  history  shows.  3rd,  That  the 
"coercive"  power  she  gets  from  the  state  is  a  power 
which  does  not  belong  to  her,  a  power  which  tends  to 
destroy  that  moral  and  spiritual  power  which  does  be- 
long to  her,  and  to  nullify  her  vocation  as  a  witness 
for  the  truth.  She  must  be  like  her  Master  (John 
xviii.  36,  37).  4th,  The  theory  is  inconsistent  with  it- 
self. The  church  and  state  are  represented  as  sover- 
eign and  independent,  having  each  a  life,  a  sphere,  an 
aim,  etc.,  etc.,  of  its  own;  and  yet  the  alliance  is  made 
necessary  to  the  life  of  both. 

II.  The  Church  of  Scotland  Theory. — The  most  il- 
lustrious defender  of  this  theory  is  Dr.  Chalmers,  in 
his  Lectures  on  the  Establishment  and  Extension  of  Na- 
tional Churches.  This  is,  in  sum,  that  the  church  has 
a  right  to  a  "legal  provision  for  the  expenses  of  its 
ministrations."  The  church  does  not,  however,  resign 
any  portion  of  her  independence.  She  receives  from 
the  state  the  maintenance  of  her  clergy,  and  the  clergy 
in  return  give  to  the  subjects  of  the  state  a  Christian 
education ;  but  they  may  and  do  reserve  to  themselves 
the  whole  power  and  privilege  of  determining  what 
that  education  shall  be.  For  their  food  and  raiment, 
and  their  sacred,  or  even  their  private  edifices,  they 
may  be  indebted  to  the  state;  but  their  creed,  disci- 
pline, ritual,  articles  of  faith,  formularias,  whether  of 
doctrine  or  devotion,"  etc.,  etc. 

Answer:  (1),  Such  an  establishment  is  as  purely  Uto- 
pian as  Plato's  republic.  (2),  The  history  of  the  church 
of  Scotland  refutes  it  all.  (3),  No  state  will,  or  ought 
to,  support  a  church  without  holding  the  church  ac- 
countable for  the  mode  in  which  the  funds  are  ex- 
pended. If  the  state  pays  for  "  education,"  she  has  a 
right  to  say  what  sort  of  education  she  is  willing  to  pay 
for,  and  to  enquire  whether  she  is  getting  it.  (4),  Then 
the  civil  magistrate  must  be  the  judge  as  to  matters  of 


Othee  Views  of  Church  and  State.  159 

faith,  which  is  the  principle  of  all  the  persecutions 
which  have  cursed  the  earth,  and  of  which  the  king- 
dom of  Scotland  has  had  its  full  share.  (5),  The  spir- 
ituality of  the  church  impaired.  Moderatism  in  the 
kirk  of  Scotland. 

III.  Gladstone' s  Theory. — [The  State  in  its  delation 
with  the  Church,  by  W.  E.  Gladstone,  Esq.,  M.  P.  See 
also  Macaulay's  review  of  this  work  in  his  Miscella- 
nies.) The  theory,  in  sum,  is  the  same  as  that  of  Vat- 
tel  and  other  old  civilians,  that  civil  government  is  in- 
stituted for  the  highest  good  of  the  whole  in  every 
concern,  and  is  bound  to  do  all  in  its  power  for  this 
end  in  every  department ;  that  a  commonwealth  is  a 
moral  person,  having  judgment,  responsibility,  etc.,  etc. 
(compare  Theory  of  Territorial  Jurisdiction,  page  162, 
below),  and  is,  therefore,  bound  as  a  corporate  person 
to  recognize  and  obey  the  true  religion.  Hence  the 
state,  as  a  state,  must  have  its  religion.  It  must  pro- 
fess this  religion  by  state  acts.  It  must  have  a  relig- 
ious test  for  office,  because  otherwise  the  religious 
character  of  the  state  would  be  lost ;  and  it  must  use 
its  state  power  to  propagate  this  state  religion.  Mac- 
aulay's review  showing  that,  upon  these  principles  of 
Mr.  Gladstone,  every  army,  bank,  railroad  corpora- 
tion, would  be  bound  to  have  its  own  religion,  the  au- 
thor, it  is  said,  in  his  second  edition  modified  his 
statement  so  as  to  make  moral  personality,  etc.,  etc., 
the  attributes  only  of  those  associations  which  have 
these  three  characteristics,  viz. :  (1),  That  they  are  of 
divine  institution;  (2),  That  they  are  perpetual;  (3), 
That  they  are  universal,  that  is,  embracing  everybody. 
These  marks  are  found  in  two  natural  associations  of 
men,  as  well  as  in  the  supernatural  society  of  the 
church,  the  family  and  the  state.  Now,  as  all  admit 
that  the  family  must  have  a  religion,  so  also  must  the 
state,  for  the  same  reasons. 

The  simple  answer  to  all  this  is:  (1),  That  it  makes 
the  state  to  nav^  in  the  moral  world,  and  it  absorbs  all 


160  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

other  relations,  both  of  the  family  and  the  church ;  a 
Lacechemonian  theory  of  the  state,  and  an  Erastian 
annihilation  of  the  church.  (2),  It  contradicts  plain 
definitions  of  the  several  spheres  of  the  church,  state, 
and  family,  as  laid  down  in  the  Scriptures.  (3),  It  is 
the  parent  of  tyranny  in  the  state,  of  formalism  and 
hypocrisy  in  the  church. 

IV.  Dr.  Arnold's  Theory. — ( The  Principles  of  Church 
lieforni,  The  State  and  the  Church,  with  other  Essays, 
by  Thomas  Arnold.)  This  theory  is  expressed  in  the 
following  extract  (see  Southeym  Preshyterian  Pevieu\ 
Vol.  III.  p.  227) :  "Where  a  state  chooses  for  itself  the 
true  religion,  it  declares  itself  Christian.  But  by  so  do- 
ing it  becomes  a  part  of  Christ's  holy  catholic  church, 
not  allied  with  it,  which  implies  distinctness  from  it, 
but  transformed  into  it.  But  as  for  the  particular 
portion  of  this  church  which  may  have  existed  before 
within  the  limits  of  the  state's  sovereignty,  the  actual 
society  of  Christian  men  there  subsisting,  the  state 
does  not  ally  itself  with  such  a  society,  for  alliance 
supposes  two  parties  equally  sovereign ;  nor  yet  does 
it  become  the  church  as  to  its  outward  form  and 
organization;  neither  does  the  church,  on  the  other 
hand,  become  so  lost  in  the  state  as  to  become,  in  the 
offensive  sense  of  the  term,  secularized.  The  spirit  of 
the  church  is  transfused  into  a  more  perfect  body,  and 
and  its  former  organization  dies  away.  The  form  is 
that  of  the  state,  the  spirit  is  that  of  the  church ;  what 
was  the  kingdom  of  the  world  has  become  a  kingdom 
of  Christ,  a  portion  of  the  church  in  the  high  and  spir- 
itual sense  of  the  term ;  but  in  that  sense  in  which 
church  denotes  the  outward  and  social  organization  of 
Christians  in  any  one  particular  place,  it  is  no  longer 
a  Christian  church,  but  what  is  far  better  and  brighter, 
a  Christian  kingdom."  Same  thing,  substantially,  as 
that  of  the  rationalists.  (See  Hertzog's  EncyclopcEdia 
snh  voc.  "  Church.")  The  answer  to  all  this  is  contained 
in  the  last  sentence,  that  the  church  ceases  to  exist 


Other  Views  of  Church  and  State.  161 

altogether.  It  is  Erastianism  in  its  boldest  and 
extremest  form.  The  same  theory  really  with  that 
of  Hobbes,  only  Dr.  Arnold's  leviathan  is  a  pious 
beast. 

V.  The  Popish  Theory. — (  Ultramontane). — The  dif- 
ferent stages  of  its  development  may  be  seen  in  the 
claims  of  Hildebrand  (1073-1085),  Innocent  III.  (1198 
-1216),  Boniface  VIII.  (1294-1303).  The  doctrine,  in 
brief,  is  that  the  ]3ope  is  vicar  of  Christ ;  and  as  Christ 
is  the  head  of  the  church  and  head  of  all  things 
besides,  for  the  sake  of  his  church,  so  the  pope  is  the 
visible  head  of  the  church  on  earth,  and  all  civil  pow- 
ers are  subject  to  his  direction  and  power  when- 
ever the  interests  of  the  church  require  it,  of  which  the 
pope,  and  not  the  civil  power,  is  the  judge.  The 
claim,  in  its  extremest  form,  is  contained  in  the  Ball 
^^  clericis  laicos^'  and  in  the  message  of  Boniface  VIII.. 
to  Philip  the  Fair,  King  of  France  (1296)  Scire  te  volu- 
imis  quod  in  sjnritualihus,  et  tevijyoraHhas  nohis  sahes. 
Al'md  credentes,  hmreticos  reputainiis.  And  a  sufficient 
answer  to  the  claim  is  contained  in  the  reply  of  Philip  : 
Bciat  maxina  tua  fatuitas,  in  tevxporaliljus  nos  alicui 
non  suhesse.  Secus  credentes  fatuos  et  dementes  reputa- 
mus.  (See  Kurtz's  Church  History,  Sect.  140-'l.)  It 
must  be  acknowledged,  however,  that  as  between  Ul- 
tramontanism  and  Gallicanism,  the  former  has  the  best 
of  the  argument  from  papal  premises,  accepted  by 
both.  (See  Thornwell  on  the  Apocrypha,  Collected 
Writings,  Vol.  III.,  pp.  540  ff.,  for  a  full  discussion 
and  refutation  of  this  abominable  theory.  (See  also, 
for  some  concessions  in  regard  to  the  effect  of  such 
claims  upon  the  causes  of  civil  freedom,  p.  44  of  the 
memoir  of  Dr.  Muller,  prefixed  to  Robertson's  trans- 
lation of  his  Symholic.)  The  legitimate  fruits  of  this 
Ultramontanism  are  seen  in  the  Albigensian  Crusades 
and  the  Inquisition.  No  surer  evidence  is  needed  to 
prove  that  the  liar-murderer  was  the  author  of  the 
theory.     (See  Gillespie's  Assertion  of  the  Government 


162  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

of  tlm  CJinrch  of  Scotland,  Part  II.,  Cli.  I.  See  on  the 
Galilean  Liberties,  Gregorie — French  papal  bishop — 
Les  Liberties  de  VEglise  Gallicane. ") 

XV. 

Subject  of  Chuech  Power. — Materia  hi  qua. 

See  Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  XXX.  Sec.  1.  All 
church  power  (of  which  Christ,  the  head,  is,  as  Ave 
have  seen,  the  -only  source)  is  in  senindo  actAi,  in  the 
officers ;  in  jyrhno  acta,  in  the  whole  body.  The  life 
of  the  church  is  one  ;  officers  are  but  the  organs  through 
Avhich  it  is  manifested,  in  acts  of  jurisdiction  and  in- 
struction ;  and  the  acts  of  all  officers,  in  consequence  of 
this  organic  relation,  are  the  acts  of  the  church.  They 
are  the  jy/vv^c^j;/^/?/?.  quo  ;  she  is  the  princi^ntcni  quod. 
The  power  resides  in  her;  it  is  exercised  by  them. 
Ministers  are  her  mouth  as  elders  are  her  hands. 
Both  equally  represent  her,  and  both  are  nothing,  ex- 
ce})t  as  they  represent  her.  All  lawful  acts  of  all  law^- 
ful  officers,  are  acts  of  the  church,  and  they  who  hear 

*  By  way  of  addendum  attention  may  be  called  to  the  three  theo- 
ries held  in  the  Lutheran  Church  : 

1.  The  "Episcopal  system,"  originated  by  Constantine  the  Great,  in 
which  the  chief  magistrate  is  head  of  the  church  {circu  Sdcrti.),  in  vir- 
tue of  his  being  the  pm'cipuum  r/ieinbrum  ecclesm,  in  Constantine's  case 
as  Pont  if  ex  Md.viiiius. 

2.  The  system  of  "territorial  jurisdiction"  (c'/j"s  regio,  ejvs  ■>elif/io) 
according  to  which  the  chief  magistrate  is  regarded  as  the  head  of  the 
church,  not  as  its  chief  member,  but  as  the  "father  of  his  people,  "and 
bound  to  look  after  all  their  interests.  (Com-pare  Vattel  and  Puffen- 
dorf,  and  Gladstone,  as  above.) 

3.  The  "collegiate  system,"  according  to  which  the  three  estates, 
which  constitute  the  Ecdesia  synthetic  a,  (to  wit :  "Economic, "  "  politi- 
cal," and  "ecclesiastical")  are  all  rei^resented,  differs  from  the  fii'st 
(the  Episcopal  system)  in  that  it  gives  much  greater  prominence  to  the 
people  {stains  ecnnomicus),  while  the  "Episcopal"  does  not  go  behind 
the  ministers  (the  atat.  ecclesiasticus).  It  made  the  power  to  reside  in 
all  the  tliree  estates,  but  primarily,  in  the  status  economicus,  which 
could  transfer  its  authority  to  the  civil  ruler.  It  was  called  the  ' '  col- 
legiate" system,  because  it  made  the  '.'  jura  in  sacris"  (doctrine,  wor- 
ship, appointment  to  ministry,  etc.  Jura  coUegialia  (collective  rights). 
See  Kurtz's  Church  History,  Vol.  II.  pp.  246-7.  Hase's  Dogmatic  Evan- 
gel (Protestant),  p.  438,  and  Quenstedt,  as  quoted  there. 


Subject  of  Church  Power.  163 

the  preacher  or  the  presbytery,  hear  the  church.  The 
case  is  analogous  to  the  motions  of  the  human  l)0(ly. 
Vital  power  is  not  in  the  hands  or  tliB  feet,  it  is  in  the 
whole  bocl}^  But  the  exercise  of  that  power  in  walk- 
ing, or  in  writing,  is  confined  to  particular  organs.  The 
power  is  one,  but  its  functions  are  manifold,  and  it  has 
an  organ  appropriate  to  every  function.  This  makes 
it  an  organic  whole.  So  the  church  has  functions; 
these  functions  require  appropriate  organs;  these 
organs  are  created  by  Christ,  and  the  church  becomes 
an  organic  whole.  (Thornioeirs  Writings,  lY'.  pp. 
272-'3.)  This  theory  is  opposed  to  the  popish  and 
prelatic  assumption,  that  the  power  resides  in  the 
clergy,  and  is  transmitted  in  a  certain  line  of  succes- 
sion. The  history  of  the  very  terms  "  clergy  and 
laity"  is  the  history  of  the  growth  of  this  grievous 
error  in  regard  to  the  subject  of  church  power.  The 
terms  are  derived  from  tAvo  Greek  words,  xXyj^oq,  lot  or 
inheritance,  and  Xao::^  people.  When  it  became  fash- 
ionable for  the  pastors  of  the  church  to  widen  the  dis- 
tance between  their  own  order  and  the  condition  of 
their  Christian  brethren,  the  Christian  commonwealth 
was  by  them  divided  into  clergy  and  laity ;  the  former 
term  was  appropriated  to  themselves  as  selected  and 
contradistinguished  from  the  multitude,  as  being  in 
the  present  world  by  way  of  eminence,  God'^  pecidhwi 
or  special ,  inheritance.  (See  Campbell's  Lect.  on 
Eccle.  History,  9,  p.  151.)  This  usage  was  derived,  as 
was  pretended,  from  the  Old  Testament,  in  wdiich  the 
tribe  of  Levi  was  called  the  inheritance  of  the  Lord. 
But  it  so  happens  that  the  tribe  of  Levi  is  never 
called  the  inheritence  of  the  Lord,  as  distinguished 
from  the  people,  but  only  as  a  part  included  in  the 
whole. — Moses,  himself  a  Levite,  says  in  an  address  to 
God  (Deut.  ix.  29),  "They  (i.  e.  the  whole  nation),  are 
thy  people  (/«oc),  and  thine  inheritance  [xXrjfto::).'"  In 
the  LXX.  version  of  this  passage,  the  same  persons  are 
in  the  same  sentence  declared  to  be  both  /  and  x.  In 
14 


164  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

tlie  New  Testament  the  term  a  is  applied  to  persons 
but  in  one  passage  (1  Pet.  v.  3),  and  in  that  the  term 
is  appHed  not  to  the  shepherds  but  to  the  flock,  in  op- 
position to  the  pastors.  The  Lord  is  said  to  be  the 
inheritance  of  Levi  (because  that  tribe  had  no  landed 
possessions,  but  lived  by  the  temple),  but  not  vice 
versa.  ,  Strange  the  confusion  about  so  simple  a  matter. 
Clemens  Romanus,  indeed,  uses  the  term  ^^ Xacxoc''  to 
distinguish  the  mass  of  the  Jews  from  the  Levites  (in- 
cluding the  priests)  f  and  on  this  account,  the  use  of 
the  terms  "clergy  and  laity"  is  thought  to  be  as  old  as 
his  day.  But,  as  Dr.  Campbell  observes  {loc.  sup. 
cit),  he  is  speaking  of  the  Jetoish  priesthood ,  not  of 
the  Christian  nniiiistry ;  and  he  does  not  use  it  in  op- 
position to  any  one  general  term,  such  as  clericoi,  but, 
after  mentioning  three  different  orders,  he  uses  the 
term  laicoi,  to  include  under  one  comprehensive  name 
all  that  Avere  not  specially  comprised  under  an}^  of  the 
former — corresponding  to  the  application  sometimes 
made  of  the  Latin  word  popnlaris  {e.  g.  a  citizen,  one 
that  is  not  a  soldier).  Li  this  view  it  might  be  con- 
trasted with  men  in  office  of  any  kind  whatever ;  thus, 
in  civil  government,  with  "rulers,"  to  distinguish  the 
people  from  the  magistrate ;  in  an  army  with  "  generals," 
the  soldiers  from  the  commander.  In  this  sense  like  idi- 
otes.  i^ee  Ilorsleys  Tracts  against  Priestly ;  Ale,pander 
071  Acts  iv.  13.)  Even  in  its  application  to  the  Levitical 
economy,  Clemens  (as  Dr.  C.  maintains)  does  not  use  it  so 
as  to  imply  that  it  was  in  itself  exclusive  of  the  priest- 
hood and  of  the  tribe  of  Levi.  They  are  indeed  ex- 
cluded, because  separately  named,  but  not  from  the 
import  of  the  word.  Take  an  example  from  the  New 
Testament  (Acts  xv.  22) :  "Apostles  and  elders  with  the 
whole  church."  Here  are  three  orders  plainly  men- 
tioned and  distinguished  (compare  the  phrase,  "  the 
law,  the  prophets  and  the  scriptures"  ;  see  Alexander's 
Isaiah,  p.  xix.),  the  apostles  or  extraordinary  ministers, 

*  Clement's  words  are  "  The  High  Priest,  the  Priests,  the  Levites  and 
the  laics. " 


Subject  of  Church  Power.  165 

the  elders  or  fixed  pastors,  and  the  church  or  Christian 
people.^"  But  does  this  imply  that  the  name  church 
does  not  properly  comprehend  the  pastors  as  well  as 
people?  By  no  means.  They  are  not,  indeed,  in  this 
passage  comprised  under  the  term,  not  because  it  does 
not  extend  so  far  (which  is  not  the  fact),  but  because 
they  are  separately  named.  The  import  of  the  ex- 
pression is  no  more  than  this  :  the  apostles  and  elders, 
with  all  the  Christian  brethren  who  come  not  under 
either  of  these  denominations.  So  also  1  Pet.  v.,  the 
presbyters  are  opposed  to  the  cleroi,  not  as  though  the 
former  constituted  no  part  of  God's  heritage  or  clergy ; 
they  only  do  not  constitute  that  part  of  which  they  are 
here  commanded  to  take  the  charge.  So  Clement's 
laicoi  is  "all  the  Jewish  people." 

I  have  said  that  the  history  of  these  words  is  the 
history  of  the  grievous  error  of  popery  and  prelacy, 
which  lodges  church  power  in  the  ministry  or  clergy. 
The  distinction  of  clergy  and  laity  took  its  rise  in  the 
church  about  the  same  time  with  the  rise  of  the  doc- 
trine of  a  sacerdotal  character  in  the  ministry. 
Churches  became  temples,  ministers,  priests,  and  wor- 
ship, sacrifice.  Now,  under  the  law,  the  priesthood  was 
a  separate  caste,  the  succession  depending  not  upon 
election  by  the  people,  but  upon  birth  ;  and  so  also 
with  the  Levitical  ministry  in  general.  It  was  all  a 
matter  of  birth.  Consequently,  although  the  whole  na- 
tion of  the  Jews  was  called  a  "  kingdom  of  priests,"  in  a 
figurative  sense,  yet  the  power  of  the  priesthood  was 
not  in  the  people,  but  in  the  family  of  Aaron  alone. 
Hence  the  terrible  judgment  upon  Korali  and  his  fol- 
lowers. When,  therefore,  the  sacerdotal  theory  of  the 
ministry  began  to  prevail,  and  the  Levitical  priesthood 
was  considered  the  type  of  the  Christian  ministry,  it  was 
inevitable  that  the  ministry  should  become  a  caste,  and 
the  people  become  a  flock  of  sheep  only  to  be  fleeced. 

*  This  is  the  division  found  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  in  Josephus  and 
Philo.  and  alluded  to  in  Luke  xxiv.  44,  where  the  "Psalms"  are  men- 
tioned as  representing  the  Hagiographa  (or  Scriptures. ) 


166  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

Hence  the  privileges  of  the  people  began  to  be 
abridged,  in  the  matter  of  electing  their  own  chnrch 
officers,  until  the  settled  doctrine  of  the  church  of 
Eome  was  thus  expressed  in  the  words  of  Bellarmine 
(See  Clericis,  Chap,  vii.,  cited  by  Cunningham;  see 
ThormoelTs  V^riUngs,  IV.  p.  271):  "The  election  of 
pastors  pertains  to  the  government  of  the  churph. 
The  people,  therefore,  ought  not  to  elect  their  pas- 
tors." So  long  as  they  had  the  power  of  election  it 
might  appear  as  if  the  people  was  the  body  in  which 
the  vital  force  resided,  and  that  the  officers  were 
merely  the  mouth,  or  hands,  or  feet. 

The  same  leaven  of  prelacy  is  manifested  in  the  use 
of  the  terms  "  clergy  and  laity"  by  some  in  our  own 
church.  (See  TliormoelVs  Writings,  IV.  p.  277.)  Im- 
portant, therefore,  to  point  out  in  what  sense  these 
terms  may  be  used  in  harmony  with  the  doctrine 
that  all  church  power  is,  as  to  its  hei?igj  in  the  whole 
church.  (See  ThornwelVs  Writings,  tit  supra.)  Clergy 
and  laity  are  terms  which  in  the  New  Testament  are  in- 
discriminately applied  to  all  the  people  of  God.  About 
this  there  can  be  no  question.  In  the  New  Testament 
sense,  therefore,  every  minister  is  a  layman  and  every 
layman  is  a  clergyman.  In  the  common  Protestant 
sense,  the  origin  of  which  it  is  useless  to  trace  (it  is 
given  above  from  Campbell),  the  terms  express  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  office-bearers  of  the  church  and 
the  people  in  their  private  capacity.  A  clergyman  is  a 
man  clothed  Avith  the  office  of  a  Presbyter.  Now,  an 
office  in  a  free  government  is  not  a  rmik  or  a  caste.  It 
is  not  an  estate  of  the  realm.  It  is  simply  a  public 
trust.  A  man,  therefore,  does  not  cease  to  belong  to 
the  people  by  being  chosen  to  office.  The  president 
of  the  United  States  is  still  one  of  the  people.  The 
representatives  in  Congress  are  still  among  the  people. 
Our  judges  and  senators  are  still  a  part  of  the  people. 
Office  makes  a  distinction  in  relations — the  distinc- 
tion between  a  private  and  a  public  man,  but  makes  no 


Subject  of  Chuuch  Powee.  167 

distinction  in  person  or  in  rank.  Office-bearers  are 
not  an  order  in  the  legal  sense.  ^'  "^^  ^  To  convey  the 
idea  that  the  distinctions  induced  by  ordination  are  of- 
ficial, and  not  personal,  our  standards  have  studiously 
avoided  the  word  clergy,  which  had  been  so  much 
abused  in  the  papacy,  and  substituted  the  more  cor- 
rect expressions,  offices  and  office-bearers.  See  Acts 
XX.  28,  where  bishops  are  said  to  be  "  in  the  flock"  t 
(a  part  of  the  flock),  not  over  it,  as  in  our  version. 
Powder,  then,  is  m  prlmo  actio,  in  the  church  as  a 
body,  an  organic  whole;  the  people  and  the  rulers 
are  the  organ  of  election.  The  officers  elected  are 
the  organs  by  which  the  functions  of  teaching, 
government,  and  distribution  of  revenues  are  ex- 
ercised. And  as  the  organs  are,  in  a  truer  sense,  given 
to  the  body  than  the  body  to  the  organs,  so  it  is  more 
proper  to  say  that  the  ministry  is  given  to  the  church 
than  the  church  to  the  ministry.  The  former  is  Paul's 
mode  of  stating  the  case  (Eph.  iv.  Gor.  xii.,  Rom.  xii.) ; 
the  latter  is  the  mode  of  the  prelatists. 

II.  Power  in  aciu  secundo,  or  as  to  its  exercise,  is 
in  the  officers  of  the  church.  This  is  opposed  to  the 
Congregational  theory  of  church  power,  which  makes 
it  to  reside  in  the  people,  both  in  actu  priino  and  in 
actu  seciindo.  When  I  say  the  Congregational  theory, 
I  do  not  mean  that  it  was  the  accepted  theory  of  the 
English  Independents  as  a  body,  for  John  Owen  held 
the  true  doctrine  upon  this  point,  as  you  ma}^  see  by 
referring  to  his  True  Nature  of  a  Gospel  Church.  So 
far  as  a  particular  church  is  concerned,  he  was  a  Pres- 
byterian; but  he  was  an  Independent  in  denying  that 
the  church  visible  w^as  one  in  any  such  sense  as  to 
warrant  classical,  synodical,  or  general  assemblies.  The 
Congregational  theory  to  which  I  refer  was  defended 
by  John  Robinson,  a  portion  of  whose  congregation 

*  Compare  the  terms,  "ortZo  and  plebs" — wbicli  are  very  different 
from  clergy  aud  laity. 

t  Revised  New  Testament. 


168  EccLESioLoaY. 

in  Holland  constituted  the  colony  of  the  Mayflower  in 
1620.  He  was  opposed,  and  his  tlieoiy  refuted,  by 
the  famous  Samuel  Kutherford,  in  a  treatise  entitled 
The  Due  Bight  of  Presbyteries,  etc.,  London,  1644. 
The  theory  is  called  by  Eutherford,  "The  way  of  our 
New  England  brethren,"  and  we  may  call  it,  therefore, 
the  "New  England  Congregational  theory."  It  is 
briefly  this :  that  all  power  resides  in  church-members, 
in  the  brotherhood,  and  that  they  delegate  this  power 
to  those  whom  they  elect  to  bear  office ;  these  office- 
bearers being  deputies  or  proxies  of  the  people,  and 
doing  only  in  the  matter  of  government  what  the  peo- 
ple themselves  might  of  right  do ;  or,  as  it  is  given  by 
Eutherford  (I  suppose  from  Eobinson):  "The  church 
which  Christ,  in  his  gospel,  hath  instituted,  and  to 
which  he  hath  committed  the  keys  of  his  kingdom; 
the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  the  tables  and  seals 
of  the  covenant ;  the  offices  and  censures  of  his  church ; 
the  administration  of  all  his  public  worship  and  ordi- 
nances, is  a  company  of  believers  meeting  in  one  place 
every  Lord's  day  for  the  administration  of  the  holy 
ordinances  of  God  to  public  edification."  (Right  of 
Presljyteries,  ch.  1,  sec.  1,  prop.  1.)  In  answer  to  this, 
Eutherford  contends  that  "the  keys,"  the  power  of 
binding  and  loosing,  are  not  given  to  a  company  of 
believers,  considered  as  an  unorganized  assembly,  but 
to  the  organized  church,  an  assembly  under  officers  of 
their  own  choice ;  and  that  this  organized  body  is  the 
"subject"  of  ecclesiastical  power  in  actu  primio,  and 
that  the  presbyters  are  the  "subject"  of  the  power  of 
government  in  actu  secundo,  or,  as  our  Confession  of 
Faith  (xxx.  1)  expresses  it,  the  Lord  Jesus  is  king  and 
head  of  his  church,  and  hath  therein  cvppoiuted  a  gov- 
ernment in  the  hands  of  church  officers,  distinct  from 
the  civil  magistrate.  The  rulers  of  the  church,  there- 
fore, although  the  representatives  of  the  people,  are 
not  their  deputies  or  proxies ;  are  not  responsible  to 
them,  though  elected  by  them ;  but  are  responsible  to 


Subject  of  Church  Power.  169 

Jesus  Christ,  who  has  ordained  the  constitution  of  the 
church,  created  these  offices,  and  defined  their  func- 
tions. The  difference  between  the  Presbyterian  and 
the  New  England  Congregational  theories  may  be  il- 
lustrated by  the  difference  between  the  true  theory  of 
our  civil  constitution  and  the  false,  though  popular, 
theory  of  it.  Our  civil  government  is  a  representative 
republic.  The  source  of  all  political  power  is  the  peo- 
ple, who  ordain  and  establish  a  constitution,  a  funda- 
mental law,  by  which  the  exercise  of  the  various  de- 
partments of  government  is  given  to  certain  officers  or 
bodies  of  officers,  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive, 
chosen  or  appointed  in  a  certain  Avay  prescribed  by 
the  people  in  the  constitution.  Now,  all  these  officers, 
whether  in  this  department  or  in  that,  whether  acting 
singly  or  jointly,  represent  the  people,  because  they 
were  chosen  by  the  people,  directly  or  indirectly.  But 
they  are,  when  chosen  or  appointed  in  a  constitutional 
manner,  not  responsible  to  the  people  (that  is,  in  the 
sense  of  "constituents"  or  "electors"),  but  to  the  law. 
The  representatives  in  the  legislature,  and  the  execu- 
tive, and  all  other  officers  chosen  by  the  popular  vote, 
are  responsible,  not  to  their  constituents,  but  to  the 
constitution — "that  is  to  say,  not  to  the  people  who 
elected  them,  but  to  the  people  (sovereign)  whose  will 
is  expressed  in  the  constitution."  So  that,  as  Burke 
said  to  the  electors  of  Bristol  he  had  done,  the  repre- 
sentative is  often  compelled  to  maintain  the  interests 
of  his  constituents  against  their  vnshes.  (Thornwell, 
Vol.  lY.,  page  100.) 

The  popular  theory,  on  the  other  hand,  is  that  the 
will  of  the  people,  through  the  ballot-box,  is  the  law ; 
that  is,  that  our  government  is  a  democracy  like  that 
of  ancient  Greece,  with  this  difference,  that  while  in 
the  old  democracies  the  people'  assembled  en  viasse,  in 
ours  they  assemble  by  proxies  or  deputies.  So  in  the 
church,  Presbyterians  hold  that  the  rulers  are  repre- 
sentatives, deriving  their  authority,  when  once  chosen 


170  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

to  office  by  the  people,  not  from  the  people,  but  from 
Jesus  Christ,  who  ordained  and  established  the  con- 
stitution ;  that  the  people  have  no  share  in  the  govern- 
ment, but  only  the  right  of  choosing  their  governors ; 
while  the  New  England  theory  is  that  the  people  gov- 
ern themselves,  are  themselves  rulers,  either  en  masse, 
or  by  proxies  or  deputies.  The  error  upon  which  the 
New  England  theory  is  founded  is  that  contained  in 
the  sentence  already  quoted  from  Bellarmine,  that  the 
election  of  pastors  is  a  function  pertaining  to  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  church.  Bellarmine,  as  we  have  seen, 
draws  from  this  principle  the  conclusion  that  the  peo- 
ple have  no  right  to  elect  their  pastors.  The  Inde- 
pendents in  the  Westminster  Assembly,  on  the  other 
hand,  accepting  the  principle,  drew  the  conclusion  that 
the  people  have  some  share  in  the  government  of  the 
church,  and  consequently  that  the  Presbyterian  doc- 
trine, which  excludes  them  altogether  from  govern- 
ment, must  be  false.  The  true  way  of  meeting  both 
extremes,  papists  and  Independents,  is  by  denying  the 
principle  and  asserting  with  Ames,  in  his  answer  to 
Bellarmine,  ^'Electio  quavivis,''  etc.  "Although  elec- 
tion pertains  to  the  constituting  of  government,  it  is, 
nevertheless,  not  an  act  of  government."  Dr.  Hodge 
holds  the  same  erroneous  view,  laying  it  down  among 
the  fundamental  principles  of  Presbyterianism  that 
the  people  "have  a  right  to  a  substantive  part  in  the 
government  of  the  church."  (See  Discourse  on  Pres- 
byter laiiism,  published  by  the  Board  of  Publication, 
Princeton  Review,  July  number,  page  547  ;  Tliornioell, 
Yol.  IV.  p.  274-'5  ff.)  Hence  he  makes  the  ruling  elder 
a  mere  expedient  by  which  the  people  appear  in  church 
courts ;  and  the  people  appear,  not  as  the  church,  con- 
sidered as  a  whole,  but  as  a  separate  class  or  party, 
opposed  to  the  clergy;  hence,  again,  the  ruling  elder  is 
not  a  representative,  but  a  deputy,  a  mere  factor  of  the 
people.  {Thorn irell,  ut  snp.)  More  will  be  said  on 
this  subject  when  Ave  come  to  consider  the  meaning  of 


The  Subject  of  Church  Power.  171 

the  term  presbyter  as  an  official  designation,  and  the 
nature  of  Presbyterian  government  as  representative. 

XYI. 

Officers  or  the  Church. 

I.  Officers  in  the  apostolic  church  were  of  two  kinds, 
extraordinary  and  ordinary.  See  Eph.  iv.  11  ;  1  Cor. 
xii.  28,  and  compare,  for  the  grounds  upon  which  the 
extraordinary  are  defined  to  be  temporary,  1  Cor.  xiii. 
10,  etc.,  with  Warburton's  exposition  of  the  passage  in 
his  '^Doctrine  of  Grace.'"  We  shall  consider  the  ordi- 
nary officers  first,  as  those  in  which  we  have  a  practi- 
cal concern  in  the  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the 
church.     (See  Form  of  Government^ 

1.  Bishops,  or  pastors,  and  elders.  I  put  these  to- 
gether because  they  are  all  designated  in  the  New 
Testament  by  a  common  term,  preshyters.  Our  church 
derives  its  name  from  preshytery,  the  government  being 
lodged  in  the  hands  of  courts  consisting  of  presbyters. 
See  the  definition  of  Presbyterianism  on  page  194 
et  seq.  Our  book  uses  the  terms  in  the  popular  ac- 
ceptation "  bishops  or  pastors,"  denoting  the  presby- 
ters who  "labor  in  the  word  and  doctrine;"  "ruling 
elders"  denoting  the  presbyters  who  rule  only.  In  the 
New  Testament  all  these  terms  are  used  interchange- 
ably. Take  one  example  in  which  they  all  occur  (or 
their  equivalents)  Acts  xx.  17-28 :  "  Take  heed  there- 
fore unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock,  over  the 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  ("presbyters" 
vs.  17)  overseers  (episcopos),  to  feed  (perform  the  of- 
fice of  a  sh&pherd  or  7J>«cS'/(y?')  the  church  of  God,"  etc. 
"Presbyter"  is  the  title  of  honor  or  respect,  "bishop" 
the  name  designating  the  function,  "  pastor"  the  poet- 
ical name,  and  expressive  chiefly  of  afiection. 

There  are  three  leading  opinions  as  to  the  use  of  the 
term  "  presbyter  "  in  the  New  Testament.  Fird,  That 
it  denotes  an  officer  inferior  in  order  to  the  "bishop," 


172  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

and  differing  in  function.  Second,  That  it  denotes  a 
preacher  of  the  word,  and  cannot  be  applied  to  a  ruHng 
elder.  TJiird,  That  it  means  a  chosen  ruler,  and 
that,  while  it  is  used  to  denote  pastors  or  ministers  of 
the  word,  it  is  not  so  used  because  pastors  are  min- 
isters of  the  word,  but  because  they  are  rulers;  the 
shepherd  having  two  staves,  the  one  Beauty,  the  other 
Bands  (Zech.  xi.  17),  he  is  called  presbyter  on  account 
of  his  staff  Bands,  his  power  of  rule,  and  not  on  ac- 
count of  his  staff  Beauty,  his  power  of  teaching.  The 
first  of  these  opinions  is  that  of  the  prelatists,  the 
second  is  that  of  the  Congregationalists  generally,  and 
of  some  leading  men  in  our  own  church  (Hodge,  Sm3^the 
of  Charleston,  etc.),  the  third  is  that  of  our  standards 
and  of  the  strict  constructionists,  ov  jure  div'mo  men,  in 
our  own  church.  Instead  of  considering  each  of  these 
opinions  separately,  I  shall  establish  the  last  as  the 
true  view  of  the  term,  and  in  so  doing  of  course  the 
other  two  will  be  overthrown.  See  a  very  clear,  full, 
neat  presentation  of  the  evidence  from  our  book  and 
from  Scripture  on  this  point.  Read  ThormoelV a  Col- 
lected ^VrhmcJs,^o\.  IV.  pp.  104-114:  '' That  presby- 
ter as  a  title  of  office,  etc."  See  OweiiH  True  Nature 
of  Gospel  Church,  Ch.  7,  (works)  Vol.  XX.  pp.  472,  et 
ff. ;  JlutherforcVs  Due  Bight  of  Preshyteries,  pp.  141, 
etc. ;  Miller  on  Ruling  Elders. 

■  The  classic  place  of  the  New  Testament  in  proof  that 
the  term  presbyter  is  not  descriptive  of  a  preacher  as 
such,  is  1  Timothy  v.  17.  The  obvious  meaning  of 
these  words,  that  which  would  suggest  itself  to  any  un- 
biased reader,  is,  that  there  are  two  sorts  of  presby- 
ters, one  sort  ruling  only,  the  other  laboring  in  the 
word  and  doctrine,  as  well  as  ruling.  The  term  "  pres- 
byter," therefore,  is  applied  to  an  officer  in  the  Chris- 
tian church  who  does  not  "  labor  in  the  word  and  doc- 
trine ;"  and  if  so,  the  word  cannot  designate  the  func- 
tion of  preaching,  and  cannot  be  applied  to  preachers 
only.     When  applied  to  a  preacher  it  must  be  on  ac- 


Officers  of  the  Church.  173 

count  of  some  function  other  than  preaching,  which  he 
performs,  and  this  function  is  explained  to  be  that  of 
ruhng.  The  general  sense  of  the  term,  therefore,  is  a 
ruler.  It  follows  from  this  statement  :  1.  That  it  is  a 
false  induction  to  collect  together  a  bundle  of  passages 
in  wdiich  presbyters  are  mentioned,  who  were  un- 
questionably preachers,  and  then,  without  pausing  to 
inquire  whether  there  may  not  be  "negative  in- 
stances" (as  Bacon  calls  them),  or  whether  the  real 
ground  has  been  discovered  of  the  application  of  the 
term,  to  lay  it  down  as  an  axiom  that  the  scriptural 
presbyter  is  a  minister  of  the  word.  "  The  negative  in- 
stance is  the  most  powerful."  Compare  reasoning  of 
Baptists  about  haptizo. 

To  produce  a  thousand  texts  in  which  the  words 
presbyter  and  preacher  appeared  to  be  interchangeable 
would  signify  nothing,  if  a  single  case  could  be  alleged 
in  which  they  were  evidently  of  difterent  import.  In 
such  a  contingency,  the  dictate  of  sound  philosophy 
and  sober  criticism  would  be  to  inquire  whether  there 
were  not  some  property  common  to  both  terms,  in  con- 
sequence of  which  the  affirmative  and  negative  in- 
stances might  be  fairly  harmonized.  A  definition 
should  be  sought  embracing  the  points  in  which  those 
who  were  and  those  who  were  not  preachers  agreed. 

This  definition  would  include  all  that  is  essential  to 
the  meaning  of  the  title,  and  would  set  forth  the  pre- 
cise ground  on  which  it  is  attributed  to  either  class. 
Now  this  common  property,  the  essence  of  the  presby- 
ter ate,  is  given  in  the  passage  in  Timothy.  It  is  the 
function  of  ruling.  To  affirm  in  the  face  of  this  scrip- 
ture that  all  elders  are  teachers,  is  no  less  absurd  than 
to  affirm,  in  the  face  of  experience,  that  all  that  are 
mortal  are  men.  There  are  only  two  other  interpreta- 
tions, so  far  as  I  know,  deserving  of  notice  :  1,  Yitrin- 
ga's  {l)e  Sijn.  Vet.),  that  all  presbyters  were  ordained  to 
preach  as  well  as  rule ;  but  that,  in  fact,  they  did  not 
all    preach.     2,  That   the   emphasis   is  on  the    word 


174  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

yMTi  (laboring  to  weariness.)  According  to  this  inter- 
pretation ministers  are  represented  as  worthy  of 
"double  honor"  who  do  not  labor  "to  weariness." 
According  to  Yitringa's,  men  are  ordained  to  do  that 
which  they  are  not  expected  to  do. 

2.  It  follows  that  the  objection  which  is  taken  from 
the  use  of  the  word  deacon  has  no  force.  The  objec- 
tion is  thus  stated  :  "  As  the  Greek  word  for  deacon  is 
used  in  a  general  sense  for  all  church  officers,  and  yet 
is  the  specific  title  of  one  particular  class  of  officers ;  so 
the  word  presbyter  may  be  taken  in  a  wide  sense,  in- 
cluding even  apostles,  and  is  yet  the  definite  title  of 
ordinary  ministers  of  the  word,  and  is  never  applied  in 
its  specific  sense  and  without  qualification  to  any  who 
are  not  ministers;"  i.  e.,  presbyter,  from  being  a  ge- 
neric term,  susceptible  originally  of  a  larger  extension, 
became  eventually  the  definite  title  of  a  particular 
class.  It  is  a  universal  law  of  classification,  that  what 
logicians  call  the  whole  comprehension  of  the  genus,  or 
every  idea  which  enters  into  a  just  definition  of  the 
name  of  a  class,  must  be  found  in  ail  the  species  which 
are  included  under  it.  This  is  the  only  ground  on 
which  the  genus  can  be  predicated  of  the  subordinate 
classes.  Hence,  if  the  word  presl)yter  is  generic,  and 
in  its  full  comprehension  capable  of  being  affirmed  of 
other  classes  of  men,  besides  ministers  of  the  gospel, 
■the  idea  of  preaching  cannot  enter  as  an  element  into 
a  definition  of  the  genus.  The  specific  differences 
which  distinguish  the  various  classes  under  a  common 
name,  cannot  be  included  in  the  definition  of  that  name. 
If  preachers,  accordingly,  constitute  a  species  of  the 
genus  presbyter,  and  some  who  are  not  preachers  con- 
stitute another,  it  is  intuitively  obvious  that  the  com- 
prehension of  the  generic  term  excludes  the  property 
of  preaching.  The  specitic  difference  of  the  classes 
consists  in  the  possession  in  the  one  case  and  the  ab- 
sence in  the  other,  of  lawful  authority  to  preach. 
Hence  the  authority  to  preach  could  not  be  the  ground 


Officers  of  the  Church.  175 

of  the  term  presbyter  being  applied  to  preachers  in  a 
restricted  sense  (even  if  such  restricted  sense  existed), 
but  some  property  belonging  to  the  comprehension  of 
the  genus.  And  this,  for  all  that  appears  to  the  con- 
trary, may  be  the  function  jof  ruling.  Illustrate  by 
"  deacon,"  and  show  how  this  example  makes  for  us. 
{Thornwelll'Sl.i^.  109.) 

The  history  of  the  term  elder,  or  presbyter,  or  zaJcen, 
shows  that  its  primary  and  common  meaning  is  that  of 
"ruler"  and  not  "teacher."  It  has  reference  primarily 
to  superiority  in  years.  Now  the  earliest  form  of  gov- 
ernment being  the  patriarchal,  the  patriarch  or  elder 
being  the  governor,  nothing  was  more  natural  than  that 
elder  should  come  to  mean  governor  when  used  of  offi- 
cial station ;  afterAvard,  such  terms  came  to  be  used  in 
all  languages  as  terms  of  respect  or  reverence,  since  re- 
spect belongs  both  to  age  and  office — senior,  sigiiore^ 
seigneur,  sire  (lord  and  father),  sieur,  rnonsieit7\  senator, 
alderman.  First  age ;  then  authority ;  then  respect — 
this  seems  to  be  the  history  of  the  word.  So  also  the 
terms  pastor  and  bishop,  which  we  have  seen  to  be 
used  interchangeably  with  elder,  properly  denote  gov- 
ernment, not  teaching."" 

Pastor,  or  shepherd,  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  gen- 
erally used  in  this  sense,  and  where  it  is  used  of  a 
teacher,  the  ground  of  such  application  is  probably  the 
tendency  of  teaching  to  regulate  the  life.  In  our  ver- 
sion, this  usage  does  not  always  appear,  because  the 
expression  to  "feed  "  is  very  often  used  to  represent 
the  word  for  performing  the  office  of  a  shepherd.  But 
in  the  following  passages  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the 
meaning  of  the  term :  Ezek.  xxxvii.  24,  where  shepherd 
and  king  are  used  as  synonymous ;  Ezek.  xxxiv.  24,  25, 
where  shepherd  and  prince  are  the  same ;  1  Chron.  xi.  2. 

So  in  the  New  Testament,  Rev.  ii.  27,  "ruling"  with 

*  For  a  couc'lusive  argument  from  the  earlier  Fathers,  see  Spirit  of 
the  XIX.  Century  (1843),  pp.  621  if,  by  Thornwell,  in  his  "  Uollect&d 
Writings,''  Vol.  IV.,  pp.  115  ff. 
15 


176  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

a  rod  of  iron,  is  "slieplierding"  with  a  rod  of  iron; 
Matt.  ii.  6,  the  governor  shall  shepherd  mj  people  Is- 
rael; and  in  Eph.  iv.  11,  if  pastors  are  not  rulers, 
there  is  no  mention  made  of  rulers  at  all.  In  the 
classic  Greek  writers,  reference  may  be  made  to  Ho- 
mer, in  whom  "shepherd"  is  constantly  used  for 
"king,"  TLOt(j:fy/jj.o)v. 

Bii<lio'p,  as  a  title  of  office,  is  properly  applicable  to 
a  subordinate  class  of  rulers,  who,  possessing  no  inde- 
pendent powers  of  their  own,  are  appointed  to  see  that 
duties  enjoined  upon  others  are  faithfully  discharged. 
They  differ  from  the  higher  order  of  magistrates  in 
having  no  original  authority,  and  in  being  confined  to 
the  supervision  of  others  in  the  department  committed 
to  their  care.  They  have  no  power  to  prescribe  the 
law,  they  can  only  see  that  its  precept  is  obeyed. 
Their  functions  seem  to  be  exactly  expressed  by  the 
English  word  "overseer."  The  subordinate  magistrates 
sent  out  by  Athens  to  take  care  of  her  interests  in  trib- 
utary cities  were  styled  epiHcopo't. 

Homer,  to  Inculcate  the  doctrine  that  the  gods  will 
protect  the  sanctity  of  treaties,  calls  them  the  bishops 
of  covenants.  (II.  xxii.  255.)  Hector,  as  the  guardian 
and  defender  of  Troy,  is  lamented  by  Andromache, 
under  the  same  title.  (]1.  xxiv.  729.)  So  in  the 
LXX.,  in  Numbers  xxxi.  11,  officers  of  the  host  are 
^^- episcoxyoi'  of  the  host.  Hee  also  Judges  ix.  28,  30, 
Avhere  bishop  and  ruler  of  the  cit}^  are  the  same; 
Nehemiah  xi.  9,  11,  22,  a  ruler  of  the  specified  division, 
not  a  teacher.  In  the  Apocrypha,  see  1  Maccabees,  i. 
51.  The  first  meaning  Hesychius  gives  to  "  episcopos,'' 
is  "king."  In  1  Mac.  x.  37,  anXovTB^  is  used,  bishops 
(overseers)  appointed  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 

Lastly  :  This  is  the  sense  in  which  our  standards  ex- 
plain the  term  "presbyter."  {Thormcell,  IV.,  p.  105.) 
It  says  {Form  of  Government,  Ch.  IV.  Sec.  2,  Art.  1)  that 
the  reason  why  the  pastor  (or  minister)  is  called  pres- 
hyter  is,  that  it  is  his  duty  to  be  grave  and  jDrudent,  and 


Officers  of  the  Church.  177 

an  example  of  the  flock,  and  to  govern  well  in  the 
house  and  kingdom  of  Christ.  Compare  this  now  with 
the  reasons  assigned  for  calling  him  "  ambassador"  or 
''  steward,"  and  nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  of  set 
purpose,  our  standards  define  presbyter  in  such  a  way 
as  to  make  the  definition  as  applicable  to  a  ruling- 
elder  as  to  a  pastor  (commonly  so  called).  The 
preacher  shares  in  common  with  the  deacon  the  title 
of  minister,  because  both  are  appointed  to  a  service ; 
and  he  shares,  in  common  with  the  ruling  elder,  the 
title  of  pre^sbyter,  since  both  are  appointed  to  rule. 
Our  standards  also  quote  1  Tim.  y.  17,  in  Ch.  V.  of  the 
old  book,  in  proof  of  the  divine  right  of  the  office  of 
ruling  elder,  implying  a  judgment  that  presbyter 
means  ruler.  Neither  the  word  of  God,  therefore,  nor 
our  standards,  countenance  the  notion  that  presbyter 
means  preacher.  See  Gieseler,  Vol.  I.  pp.  56,  57,  etc., 
who  contends  that  elder  and  bishop  were  the  same,  and 
that  neither  term  had  any  reference  to  teaching.  He 
goes  too  far,  however,  in  asserting  that  the  term  is  not 
used  of  those  who  did  teach. 

Here,  then,  we  have  one  fundamental  principle  of 
Presbyterianism  (see  the  traces  of  this  doctrine  even  in 
Rome — Cunningham's  C/ivrch  Prrnc'qyle^  p.  159,  and 
Historical  Theology,  Vol.  XL,  p.  251),  ajDrinciple  by  which 
it  is  distinguished  from  other  evangelical  churches,  to 
wit :  that  there  is  one  order  of  presbyters  or  chosen 
rulers,  that  in  this  order  there  are  two  classes,  like  the 
genvs  and  its  co-ordinate  species  :  1,  Presbyters  who 
rule  only ;  2,  Presbyters  who  not  only  rule,  but  also  la- 
bor in  the  word  and  doctrine  ;  and  both  these  classes 
entering  into  the  composition  of  the  church's  parlia- 
mentary assemblies,  we  have  an  exemplification  of  the 
same  principle  which  is  exemplified  in  our  civil  legis- 
latures by  two  houses,  an  expedient  which  is  as  great 
an  improvement  upon  the  representative  principle  as 
that  principle  is  over  the  principle  of  the  old  democ- 
racy. 


178  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

XVII. 

Pkesbyteries — Congregational. — "  Sessions."  * 

See  Owen,  Yol.  XXII.,  pp.  481  et  seq.,  for  the  principle 
in  its  application  to  a  single  congregation  (which  is  the 
only  visible  church  which  as  an  Independent  he  ac- 
knowledges.) See  Form,  of  Government,  Ch.  Y.,  Sec.  3  ; 
R.  J.  Breckinridge's  speech  on  "  Presbyterian  Govern- 
ment not  a  Hierarchy  bnt  a  Commonwealth"  ;  Thorn- 
well,  Yol.  lY.,  pp.  43,  ff.  In  opposition  on  one  hand  to 
prelacy,  which  puts  the  government  of  the  church  into  the 
hands  of  single  men,  and  may  therefore  be  called  the 
monarchical  form,  and  on  the  other  to  Congregational- 
ism, which  puts  the  government  into  the  hands  of  the 
people  or  brotherhood,  and  may,  therefore,  be  called  a 
democracy,  Presbyterianism  is  distinguished  by  a 
government  in  representative  assemblies,  and  may 
therefore  be  called  a  republic  or  representative  com- 
monwealth. {Form  of  Government,  Chap.  Y.,  Sec.  1, 
Art.  1.)  We  agree  with  Congregationalists  against  the 
prelatists  in  holding  that  the  power  of  rule  is  a  joint 
and  not  a  several  power ;  but  we  differ  from  the  Con- 
gregationalists in  this,  that  while  they  put  the  power 
in  the  hands  of  the  people  en  masse,  or  in  their  depu- 
ties, we  put  the  power  in  the  hands  of  presbyters  as- 
sembled in  presbyteries,  these  presbyters  being  the 
chosen  representatives  of  the  people,  yet  according  to 
the  principles  already  stated  under  the  head  of  the 
"  Subject  of  Church  Power,"  deriving  their  authority 
from  Christ  the  head  of  the  church  and  the  author  of 
its  constitution. 

1.  The  first  step  in  the  proof  is  to  show  that  there 
was  a  plurality  of  elders  or  bishops  in  every  church  in 
the  times  of  the  apostles.  This  is  to  be  proved  not 
only  against  the  prelatists,  but  against  the  Congrega- 
tionalists  also.     The    Congregationalists   of  England 

*  See  Psa.  cvii.  32,  and  Alexander  in  loc 


Presbyteries— Congregational. — Sessions.       179 

and  of  New  England,  as  a  general  if  not  a  universal 
rule,  have  but  one  elder,  who  is  a  teaching  elder.    (See 
The  Billing  FJdersMjj,  by  Eev.  David    King  of  Glas- 
gow ;  Pittsburg  United  Presbyterian  Board  of  Educa- 
tion,   1860.)     And    many  leading     Congregationalists 
have  contended  that  this  was  the  practice  in  the  primi- 
tive church  ;  but  other  leading  Congregationalists,  such 
as  Dr.  Wardlaw  in  his    Congregatiomd  Independency, 
Dr.  Vaughan  in   his  Congregaiionalisni,  and  Dr.  Da- 
vidson in  his  Ecclesiastic  Polity,   have  of   late  years 
admitted  (according  to  King,  from  whom  these  refer- 
ences   are   taken),  that  in  the  primitive  church  there 
was  a  plurality  of  elders  in  each  church.     They  con- 
tend, however,  that  these   elders  were  all    preachers, 
which  has  been  shown  to  be  a  mistake.     If  they  will,' 
however,  carry  out  their  own  convictions  and  make  a 
plurality  of  preaching  elders  in  any  church,  they  will 
soon  find  that  the  circumstances  will  compel  the  most 
of  their  elders  to  become  ruling  elders  only,  and  thus 
their  organization  will  become  practicallv  the  same  as 
ours.     But   to  the   proof.     (See  Acts  xi.  30,  xiv.  23; 
XV.  2,  4,  6,  22;  xvi.  4;  xx.  17;  1  Tim.  v.  17;  Phih  i' 
1 ;  Titus  i.    5  ;  1   Peter   v.    1.)     These  references   are 
taken  from  Given  s  Ncdure  of  a  GosjM  Church  :   Works, 
XX.,  p.  481,  and  Owen  was  an  Independent,  and  not  a 
Congregationalist.     The  argument  from  these  passages 
is  this  :  A  plurality  of  elders  or  bishops  is  spoken  of 
as  existing  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  the  church  of 
Ephesus,  the  church  of  Phihppi,  etc.     Now  the  word 
church    in   such  passages   means    either  a    particular 
church,   a   single  congregation  of  the    faithful,    or   it 
means  a   church   consisting   of  several   congregations 
united  under   one   government.     If  it  means  a  single 
congregation,  then  both  Congregationahsts  and  prela- 
tists  must  give  up  their  theories ;  the  former  must  as- 
sert that  in  every  congregation,  however  small,  there 
were    many  preachers,  and  admit,  consequently,  that 
their  present  practice  is  unscriptural  in  having  only 


180  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

one.  The  latter  must  admit  there  were  several  bish- 
ops in  each  congregation,  and,  therefore,  that  these 
bishops  were  not  diocesan.  If  the  word  church  in 
such  passages,  on  the  other  hand,  means  several  con- 
gregations united  under  one  government,  then  the  In- 
dependents must  give  up  the  distinctive  principle  of 
their  sect,  that  a  single  congregation  is  the  only  visi- 
ble church  known  to  the  New  Testament ;  and  the  pre- 
latists  must  give  up  their  principle,  that  the  church  is 
governed  by  a  single  bishop  instead  of  a  presbytery. 
But  this  last  point  will  appear  more  clearly  hereafter. 
Here  note  that  Schaff  (see  Apostolic  Church,  sec.  132, 
p.  526),  although  he  differs  from  his  master,  Neander, 
as  to  the  nature  of  the  office  denoted  by  the  term  pres- 
byter, denying  what  Neander  affirms,  that  presbyter 
denotes  two  classes  of  rulers — a  teaching  and  non- 
teaching  class — yet  contends  that  in  Acts  xiv.  23,  Ti- 
tus i.  5,  the  force  of  kata  is  adverbial,  not  collective, 
and  that  the  meaning,  therefore,  is  that  elders  were 
ordained  in  each  city  (city  by  city,  church  by  church), 
not  as  Baur  and  others  assert,  one  presl)yter  in  each 
city  or  church. 

2.  The  next  step  in  the  argument  is  to  show  that 
these  elders  in  each  church  constituted  a  parliament 
or  court  for  the  government  of  said  church,  or  in  other 
words,  that  they  ruled  jointly  and  not  severally.  We 
argue  this  :  First,  From  the  nature  of  the  case.  If 
they  were  all  rulers  of  equal  authority  there  could  be 
no  decency  or  order  in  the  exercise  of  their  power  ex- 
cept by  agreement ;  that  is,  by  an  agreement  of  the 
majority.  There  must  have  been  deliberation,  con- 
ference, interchange  of  views,  and  a  vote  which  made 
the  action  the  action  of  the  whole  governing  body. 
(Compare  Acts  xv.,  the  account  of  the  proceedings  of 
the  council  at  Jerusalem.)  Second,  From  1  Tim.  iv. 
14,  compared  with  Acts  xxii.  5,  and  Luke  xxii.  QQ. 
The  lexicographers  (see  Schleusner,  in  vac.)  give  as 
the  meaning  of  preshyttrion  a  college  of  elders,   or  a 


Pbesbytekies— Congregational. — Sessions.     181 

senate,  implying  an  organized  body,  a  corporate  unit, 
of  which  the  elements  are  presbj^ters.  There  can  be 
no  donbt  of  this  being  the  meaning  of  the  terms  in 
Luke  xxii.""  and  Acts  xxii.,  for  in  these  places  it  denotes 
the  sanhedrin,  the  highest  court  in  the  Jewish  church 
and  state.  But  in  the  place  of  1  Tim.,  so  high  an  au- 
thority in  Hebrew  antiquities  as  Selden  (7>6  Synedris, 
L.  I,  c.  14,  cited  by  Vitringa,  De  Synag.  Vet.  L.  2,  c. 
12),  asserts  that  it  means  the  presbyterate,  the  office 
of  presbyter ;t  as  if  Paul  intended  to  say,  ''Neglect 
not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by 
prophecy,  with  the  imposition  of  hands,  by  which  im- 
position thou  wast  made  a  presbyter,  or  endowed  with 
the  presbyterate."  To  this  it  is  sufficient  to  reply:  1, 
That  it  is  not  very  likely  that  a  word  which  is  used 
only  in  three  places  of  the  New  Testament  should  in 
two  of  them  designate,  beyond  all  doubt,  a  college  or 
council  of  presbyters;  and  in  the  remaining  one  the 
office  of  a  presbyter.  So  that,  while  it  is  admitted,  so 
far  as  the  termination  of  the  word  is  concerned,  no 
argument  can  be  made  for  one  meaning  or  the  other, 
the  prevailing  usage  is  in  favor  of  a  council  or  col- 
lege of  persons  possessing  the  presbyterate,  and  not 
the  presbyterate  itself.  2,  A  comparison  of  this  pas- 
sage with  2  Tim.  i.  6  (as  Vitringa  suggests  in  loc.  siq). 
cit.),  shows  that  the  genitive  here  is  not  the  genitive 
of  the  thing  conferred,  but  of  the  body  conferring ; 
"iiioic  in  this  passage  standing  in  the  same  relation  to 
"hands"  as  "presbytery"  does  in  the  other.     In  the 

*In  Luke  xxii.  QQ,  the  "  -pzari''  seems  to  be  distinguished  from  the 
"  (TUi^sOfJCOU  "  ;  but  it  must,  in  any  case,  denote  a  collection  of  elders. 
(•'Estate  of  the  elders,"  in  Acts  xxii.  5,  both  in  A.  V.  and  Rev.)  In 
the  Eevision  of  1881,  the  word  is  rendered  in  this  place,  "  Assembly  of 
the  Elders,"  but  in  1  Tim.  iv.  14,  "Presbytery,"  as  in  the  A.  V. 

t  Calvin  in  his  Institutes  (B.  iv.  c.  3,  ^16)  takes  this  view  also  ;  but 
in  his  commentary  on  1  Tim.  i.  14,  he  takes  the  view  here  defended. 
The  commentary  on  1  Tim.  was  published  in  1556  ;  the  last  edition  of 
the  Institutes  in  1559.    Cftlvin  died  1564. 


182  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

one,  the  gift  is  said  to  be  conferred  by  the  laying  on  of 
the  hands  of  Panl ;  in  the  other,  by  the  laying  on  of 
the  hands  of  the  presbytery.  PreHhyterioii,  therefore, 
is  the  canse  and  not  the  effect  of  the  imposition  of 
hands.  3,  This  nse  is  sanctioned  by  the  writings  of 
Ignatius,  which  the  prelatists  are  so  fond  of  quoting, 
but  which  have  all  been  proved  to  be  forgeries. 
{Ivillhis  Ancievt  Church;  see  citations  in  Vitringa,  as 
above  cited!)  He  calls  the  presbyters  of  the  Trallean 
church  "the  sanhedrin  of  God."  Yitringa  refers  also 
to  Theodoret,  Chrysostom  and  Theophylact,  as  giving 
the  interpretation  which  we  have  defended.  Perhaps 
words  terminating  like  presbuterlon  belong  to  the  same 
class  with  such  words  as  prsetorium,  originally  de- 
noting the  place  of  business.  Some  of  this  class  of 
words  might  be  transferred  to  denote  the  officer  or 
body  of  officers  doing  business  in  the  place.  Some- 
times, again,  the  fact  of  sitting  together,  or  the  mode  of 
sitting,  gives  name  to  the  body,  as  session,  consistory, 
sanhedrin,  or  even  the  nature  of  the  seat,  as  "divan" 
(cnshion).  Compare  the  use  of  the  w^ord  "church" 
for  the  body  of  believers  and  for  the  house  where  they 
assemble;  also  synagogue,  etc.,  etc.  Jerome  seems  to 
have  had  this  word  in  his  mind  in  that  famous  passage 
of  his  commentary  on  Titus  i.  7,  which  has  excruciated 
so  much  the  prelatical  patrolaters.  (See  it  in  full  in 
Gieseler,  Vol.  I.,  p.  56,  note.     Idem  est,  etc.) 

We  have  thus  proved  that  in  the  apostolic  church 
the  government  of  single  congregations  was  in  assem- 
blies called  presbyteries,  because  composed  of  presby- 
ters— these  presbyters  being  of  two  kinds,  teaching 
and  ruling  elders.  This  is  the  very  government  which 
in  modern  times,  among  free  nations,  has  been  con- 
sidered the  most  perfect,  or,  to  use  the  language  of 
Milton,  "the  noblest,  the  manliest,  the  equalest,  the 
justest  government"  on  earth — a  government  by  repre- 
sentatives, not  by  the  people  in  propria  persona,  or  by 
deputies ;  and  these  representatives  not  all  of  the  same 


PeESBYTEEIES — CONGEEGATIONAL. — SESSIONS.      183 

class,  but  of  different  classes,  so  that,  as  the  represen- 
tative principle  is  itself  a  check  upon  the  excesses  of 
the  democratic  principle,  the  two  classes  of  represen- 
tatives constitute  a  check  upon  the  evils  incident  to  re- 
presentation by  one  class. 

Both  these  principles  are  recognized  in  the  civil  con- 
stitutions of  this  country — the  principle  of  representa- 
tion, and  of  representation  by  two  classes  of  represen- 
tatives, "senators"  and  "representatives."  The  apos- 
tles seem  to  have  j^ut  special  honor  on  this  government 
by  sitting  themselves  as  elders  in  settled  churches, 
especially  toward  the  close  of  their  ministry,  w^hen 
the  church  was  so  far  established  as  to  be  ready  to 
pass  out  of  the  state  of  infancy  and  childhood  into 
that  of  manhood.  (1  Cor.  xiii.  8-11 ;  see  Acts  xv. 
2,  4,  6,  22;  2  Tim.  i.  6;  compare  wdth  1  Tim.  iv.  14;  1 
Peter  v.  1.) 

An  incidental  confirmation  of  this  government  by 
presbyteries  may  be  derived  from  the  concessions  of 
Independents.  These  concessions  are  made  in  two 
ways:  First,  in  words.  (Beside  the  quotations  from 
King  in  the  beginnino:  of  this  lecture,  see  Miller  on 
Ruling  Elders,  Chap.  7,  who  quotes  largely  both  from 
English  and  New  England  Independents.)  Second,  in 
practice.  (See  Miller  as  before.  Chap.  8,  p.  186 ;  King 
on  the  Eldershij),  Part  I.,  pp.  27-32.)  Although  Inde- 
pendents contend  that  the  discipline  of  the  church  is 
in  the  hands  of  the  brotherhood  by  divine  right,  yet  in 
practice  they  find  that  a  promiscuous  "church-meet- 
ing" is  an  assembly  very  unhappily  constituted  for 
judicial  purposes;  and  the  tendency  has  been  to  rem- 
edy the  evil  in  one  of  two  w^ays :  first,  by  making  the 
pastor  or  elder  sole  ruler,  that  is,  by  converting  the 
democracy  into  a  monarchy ;  ^'  or,  second,  by  associat- 
ing with  tlie  pastor  a  few  of  the  most  godly  and  pru- 
dent men  in  the  congregation  as  an  advisory  commit- 

*  A  Democracy  always  tends  toward  the  centralization  of  jDOwer. 


184  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

tee — a  sort  of  eldership,  with  the  disadvantage  of  be- 
ing unordained,  and  unpledged  to  snpport  the  consti- 
tution. Dr.  King  gives  some  quotations  from  Inde- 
pendent writers,  such  as  Davidson,  James,  Campbell, 
asserting  for  the  pastor  of  a  congregation  a  degree  of 
power  which  Presbyterians  would  be  very  far  from 
conceding  to  the  pastors  of  their  congregations.  (See 
King  on  the  Eldership,  ]y2ige  15,  footnote.)  The  more 
common  method,  however,  is  the  second  above  named, 
the  selection  of  a  committee.  But  this  expedient, 
though  a  concession  to  our  princij^les,  is  far  from  be- 
ing as  efficient  or  wholesome,  for  the  ver^^  obvious 
reason  that  these  quasi  ruling  elders  are  made  by  the 
pastor  and  not  chosen  by  the  people,  and  that  they 
are  temporary  officers,  not  permanent,  and  that  for  the 
reason  already  assigned,  they  are  under  no  engage- 
ment of  faithfulness  to  the  constituti6n  of  the  church. 
We  might  argue  also  from  the  concessions,  in  Avords 
and  in  practice,  of  Episcopalians.  But  I  simply  refer 
you  to  Miller  on  Ruling  Elders,  Ch.  6,  and  Ch.  7,  page 
185,  and  on  the  Christian  Ministry,  Ch.  8.  That  these 
presbyteries  must  consist  of  two  sorts  of  presbyters, 
so  far  as  the  sphere  of  a  particular  congregation  is  con- 
cerned, is  conceded  by  all  who  admit  government  by 
presbyteries  at  all.  The  only  question  upon  this  point 
concerns  the  higher  courts,  "classical"  j)resbyteries  in 
particular.  I  shall  reserve,  therefore,  the  discussion 
of  this  point  till  we  reach  the  subject  of  the  manner 
in  which  the  idea  of  the  unity  of  the  church  is  realized 
in  the  Presbyterian  government.  Meanwhile  note  that 
our  inquiries  have  led  us  to  two  fundamental  princi- 
])les  of  Presbyterianism :  1st,  The  principle  of  repre- 
sentative government — of  government  by  parliament- 
ary courts  composed  of  presbyters  duly  appointed  and 
ordained ;  2nd,  That  these  representatives  must  be  of 
two  classes,  belonging  to  the  one  order  of  ^;;W>?/?fen<?. 
They  all  of  them  belong  to  the  one  order  of  rulers,  and 
only  as  rulers,  chosen  rulers  or  representatives  of  the 


Presbyteries — Classical,  Synodical,  General.  185 

people,  can  they  appear  in  any  of  these  courts, — pres- 
byters who  rule  only,  and  presbyters  who  both  rule 
and  labor  in  the  word  and  doctrine.  This  answers  to 
the  two  houses  in  modern  legislation.  Presbyteries 
are  not  divided,  however,  into  two  houses  (each  class 
of  presbyters  deliberating  and  voting  separately),  be- 
cause presbyteries  are  courts,  and  are  required  to  act 
as  units.  Note  that  the  elders  who  rule  only  are  called 
"representatives  of  the  people,"  not  because  they  only 
are  representatives  of  the  people  and  ministers  are 
not,  but  because  it  is  a  complete  description  of  their 
office. 

Compare  the  use  of  the  terms  senator  and  repre- 
sentative. It  does  not  imply  that  the  Senate  is  not  a 
body  of  representatives  because  the  other  house  is 
called  the  House  of  Representatives.  Both  houses 
consist  of  representatives ;  the  lower  house  of  Congress 
is  so  called  because  the  title  is  a  complete  description 
of  their  office.  The  Senate  discharges  executive  as  well 
as  legislative  functions. 

XVIII. 

Presbyteries — Classical,  Synodical,  General. 

[See  Form  of  Government,  Ch.  V.,  Sec.  1,  Arts.  1,  2 ; 
Confession  of  Faith,  Ch.  XXXI,  Sec.  1.  See  also  Divine 
Right  of  Church  Government,  by  the  London  minis- 
ters, Pt.  II.,  Chs.  XIII.,  XIV.,  X:V.,  p.  177,  etc.,  of  the 
New  York  edition  of  1844,  by  R.  Martin  &  Co.  Dick's 
Theological  Lectures,  99,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  448,  et  seq.,  of 
Carter's  edition.  New  York,  1851.  Principal  HilVs 
Theology,  B.  6,  Ch.  II.,  Sec.  2,  pp.  591,  et  seq.,  of  Hooker's 
edition,  Philadelphia,  1844.  Rutherford's  Dice  Right 
of  Preshyteries.  Killerts  Ancient  Church,  p.  248,  et 
seq.,  New  York,  Scribner,  1859;  also  of  the  same,  pp. 
605,  et  seq.  Miller  on  Ruling  Elders,  Ls.  1,  2,  3.  R. 
J.  Breckinridge' s  Sermon  on  the  Christian  Pastor,  pp. 
25,  26.      Thornwell,  Vol.  IV.,  pp.  134,  ff.] 


186  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

All  these  sorts  of  presbj^teries  are  named  together 
because  the  same  principle  underlies  them  all.  When 
we  have  once  determined  that  two  congregations  (ccetus 
fidelinm)  can  be  connected  together  in  government, 
we  have  demolished  the  fundamental  principle  of  In- 
dependency, and  established  a  fundamental  principle 
of  Presbyterianism.  It  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence, 
then,  how  much  the  number  of  congregations  may  be 
increased,  the  principle  upon  which  they  are  united 
is  the  same,  and  the  arrangement  of  the  courts,  their 
number,  extent  of  territory,  etc.,. is  an  affair  to  be 
determined  by  human  wisdom,  accommodating  its 
plans  to  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  with  a  view  to 
decency,  order  and  general  edification.  Mountains, 
rivers,  political  divisions,  language  and  other  circum- 
stances do  and  must  modify  our  attempts  to  realize, 
in  any  external  form,  the  idea  of  the  unity  of  the 
church. 

I.  The  principle  which  justifies  the  union  of  several 
congregations  under  one  government  has  just  been 
suggested :  it  is  the  unity  of  the  church.  I  am  aware 
that  the  idea  of  unity  can  never  be  perfectly  realized, 
in  an  external  organization,  upon  earth,  and  the  at- 
tempts which  have  been  made  for  that  purpose,  from 
the  days  of  Cyprian  to  the  present,  have  only  served 
to  sacrifice  the  substance  of  unity  to  the  shadow.  Still 
the  Independent  and  the  Presbyterian  cite  with  equal 
approval  (see  ./?.  HalVs  Terms  of  Cm  nonunion,  Wo7'ks, 
p.  289,  Vol.  I.,  Harper's  edition,  and  Miller  on  Ruling 
Elders,  p.  16),  the  splendid  description  by  the  Bishop 
of  Carthage  of  the  church  as  one.  In  the  strict  and 
proper  sense,  unity  is  an  attribute  of  the  church  invisi- 
ble, and  exists  in  perfection  only  in  the  mystical  body 
of  Christ ;  yet  even  Independents  acknowledge  (see 
Hall,  as  above),  that  there  ought  to  be  some  anxiety 
and  some  effort  to  exhibit  it  externally. 

"Nothing  can  be  more  abhorrent,"  says  this  elo- 
quent writer,  "from  the  principles  and  maxims  of  the 


Pbesbytekies — Classical,  Synodical,  General.  187 

sacred  oracles  than  the  idea  of  a  phiraHty  of  true 
churches,  neither  in  actual  communion  with  each 
other,  nor  in  a  capacity  for  such  communion,"  and 
well  may  he  say  so.  (See  Eph.  iv.  3-6 ;  1  Cor.  xii. 
12,  etc.,  X.  17;  John  x\ii.,  jjassivi.  (See  Mason  on  the 
Church,  No.  1,  "Plea  for  Communion,"  P.  I.,  pp.  9, 
et  seq.)  So  glaring  is  this  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  the 
church,  eA^en  as  a  visible  church  catholic,  in  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  that  it  is  unconsciously  recognized  even 
by  those  Christians  whose  church  organizations  pro- 
ceed upon  a  denial  of  it.  They  talk  habitually  of  the 
church,  the  faith  of  the  church,  the  worship  of  the 
church,  the  sufferings  of  the  church,  God's  dealings 
with  his  church,  and  a  thousand  like  things.  Let 
them  ask  what  they  mean  by  such  expressions.  They 
will  not  say  "a  particular  congregation";  and  if  they 
say  "tlie  election  of  grace,"  tlie}^  will  speedily  contr^i- 
dict  themselves,  and  fact,  and  the  word  of  God  too. 
{Mason.)  The  unhappy  division  of  the  church  into 
sects  has  been  the  chief  means  of  obscuring  the  idea 
of  her  unity  ;  and,  therefore,  in  this  discussion  we  con- 
fine ourselves  to  one  denomination,  or  to  the  church 
before  sects  existed.  The  question,  then,  is,  is  the 
visible  church  one  in  any  such  sense  as  to  warrant 
the  union  of  two  or  more  congregations  under  the 
same  government?  I  answer  in  the  affirmative,  for 
the  following  reasons  : 

1.  From  the  nature  and  ends  of  church  fellowship. 
The  union  of  believers  with  Christ  and  each  other  is  the 
source  of  communion  with  each  other.  This  com- 
munion is  involuntary,  or  spontaneous  where  the  union 
is  real.  As  a  man  cannot  help  feeling  sympathy  with 
his  fellowmen,  because  he  and  they  possess  the  same 
nature — as  one  member  of  the  body  cannot  help  sym- 
pathizing with  the  other  members,  because  they  possess 
the  same  life,  so  one  believer  must  sympathize  with 
other  believers.  It  is  the  very  nature  of  the  spiritual 
life  which  they  all  possess  in  common.  God  has  made 
16 


188  Egclestology. 

them  so.  But  as  God  has  ordained  the  family  and  the 
state  that  the  natural  fellowship  of  men  may  be  ex- 
pressed and  strengthened,  so  he  has  ordained  the 
church  that  the  fellowship  he  has  instituted  among  his 
people  may  be  promoted  by  joining  in  the  observance 
of  common  ordinances  of  w^orship,  and  by  obedience 
to  common  rules  of  government.  They  all  have  the 
same  end  in  view,  the  glory  of  God  in  their  own  salva- 
tion and  in  the  salvation  of  mankind.  Every  Christian 
is  as  much  interested  in  the  consistent  walk  and  growth 
in  grace  of  every  other  Christian  as  he  is  in  his  own  ; 
and  is  therefore  as  much  concerned  in  the  purity  of 
the  faith  and  the  holiness  of  the  life  of  other  congre- 
gations as  he  is  in  those  of  his  own.  In  the  matter, 
for  example,  of  the  character  of  ministers  of  the  word, 
their  training,  their  soundness  in  doctrine,  their  godli- 
ness, they  all  are  equall}^  interested.  Wh}^  not  then 
commit  the  whole  affair  of  examining,  licensing,  or- 
daining, installing,  removing,  and  judging  ministers  to 
a  body  of  presbyters  representing  all  the  congregations 
within  a  certain  district,  and  common  to  them  all  ? 
Again,  in  cases  of  conscience,  in  questions  of  doctrine 
or  discipline  which  are  of  common  concern  to  all  con- 
gregations, is  there  not  the  same  reason  for  having 
such  matters  decided  by  a  court  representing  all,  as 
there  is  for  Christians  of  a  single  congregation  uniting 
ill  submission  to  a  court  of  their  own  in  ordinary 
cases  of  discipline  ?  So  also  in  the  application  of  the 
rules  of  discipline  to  particular  cases.  The  presbyter}^ 
in  a  particular  church  is  sometimes  so  small,  or  the 
members  so  liable  to  bias  and  prejudice  by  reason  of 
their  relationship  to  parties  in  a  cause,  as  to  make  it 
inexpedient  for  the  court  to  issue,  if  not  to  investigate 
the  cause  ;  and  there  ought  to  be  a  provision  by  which 
the  cause  can  be  "  referred"  [Rules  of  Discipline  Ch. 
XIIL,  Sec.  2),  to  a  court  representing  a  larger  section  of 
the  church,  or  several  congregations.  Or  the  session 
of  a  particular  church  may,  through  ignorance  or  un- 


Presbyteeies — Classical,  Synodical,  General.  189 

faithfulness,  take  no  steps  to  institute  process,  or  in 
conducting  process  may  violate  the  moral  or  legal 
rights  of  accused  parties,  or  may,  in  issuing  a  case,  vio- 
late, the  plainest  dictates  of  justice.  There  ought  to  be, 
therefore,  provisions  made  for  "reviewing"  {Rides  of 
Discipline,  Ch.  XIII.,  Sec.  1),  or  judging  by  "  appeal" 
(Sec.  3  of  the  same  chapter),  or  "complaint,"  (Sec.  4) 
by  some  higher  court,  the  doings  of  the  lower.  These 
principles  are  acknowledged  in  the  constitution  of  the 
judiciary  in  every  free  commonwealth.  The  necessity 
of  some  such  arrangement  is  more  clearly  seen  in  the 
matter  of  the  discipline  of  ministers  of  the  gospel  for 
heresy  or  immorality  (specially  the  former)  than  in 
anything  else.  Heresiarchs  are  generally  plausible, 
and  if  the  responsibility  of  judging  a  minister  rests 
upon  a  single  congregation,  or  upon  the  rulers  thereof, 
it  is  not  difficult  to  see  how  unequal  the  contest  is 
likely  to  be  between  truth  and  justice  on  the  one  hand, 
and  error,  or  even  immorality,  combined  with  talents 
and  personal  popularity  on  the  other.  The  history  of 
Congregationalism  in  this  country  is  very  instructive 
upon  this  point.  It  has  shown  itself  powerless  either 
to  prevent  or  to  remedy  the  inroads  of  error.  Once 
more,  the  church  is  not  merely  to  maintain  itself,  but 
to  extend  itself.  Its  great  vocation  is  to  be  a  witness 
for  Christ,  and  the  sphere  of  its  testimon}^  is  no  nar- 
rower than  the  world.  How  can  it  accomplish  its  mis- 
sionary work  except  by  union  ?  For  all  purposes  of 
aggression,  unity  of  counsel  and  effort  is  the  first  and 
fundamental  prerequisite.  This  is  signally  illustrated  in 
the  history  of  Jesuitism  and  Methodism.  I  grant  that 
in  these  instances  efficiency  in  aggression  has  been 
purchased  at  too  great  an  expense.  The  individuality 
of  the  laborers  has  been  impaired  and  almost  destroyed. 
Still,  extreme  cases  illustrate  best  the  operation  of  prin- 
ciples. An  autocracy  is  more  efficient  in  a  war  of  in- 
vasion than  a  democracy.  Popery  and  Methodism 
have  gone  everywhere  in  this  country.     Congregation- 


190  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

alism  has  been  established  only  where  Congregational- 
ists  have  gone  before  in  large  numbers.  Congregation- 
alism can  conclnct  foreign  missions  only  by  irresponsi- 
hle  boards  of  commissions  or  associations.  Presbyte- 
rianism  conducts  them  through  its  regular  courts,  which 
are  representative  bodies  ;  and  it  is  the  only  system 
which  combines  efficiency  of  aggressive  operations 
with  the  full  preservation  and  development  of  indi- 
vidual life.  Its  members  are  not  mere  spokes  in  a 
wheel ;  they  are  wheels  within  awheel.  The  missionary 
work  is  an  essential  part  of  the  calling  of  the  church  ; 
union  under  one  government  is  essential  to  the  proper 
prosecution  of  this  work.  Ergo,  union  under  one  gov- 
ernment, is  essential  to  the  church's  calling. 

2.  From  the  concessions  of  Independents.  First, 
in  words.  (See  Owens  True  Nature  of  a  Gospel 
Church,  Ch.  XI.  Works  (Eussell's  ed.  Lond.  1826), 
Yol.  XX.,  pp.  569  if.)  This  whole  chapter,  it  seems  to 
me,  is  a  concession  to  Presbyterian  principles ;  and  is 
conclusive  only  against  the  prelatical  notions  of  the 
unity  of  the  church,  and  especially  the  papal.  See 
the  last  paragraph  in  the  chapter,  in  which,  after  dis- 
cussing the  nature  of  the  Synod  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  XY.,) 
he  says,  p.  601,  Yol.  XX.,  last  paragraph  in  the  Treatise, 
"Hence  it  will,"  etc.,  every  word  of  which  a  Presby- 
terian might  adopt,  not  excepting  the  words  "voluntary 
consent."  (See  C.  of  F.  Ch.  XXXL,  §  2.)  Second,  in 
universal  practice:  As  they  are  compelled  to  imitate 
Presbyterians  on  the  scale  of  a  single  congregation  (see 
Lect.  on  Congregational  Preshyteries) :  so  also  on  the 
larger  scale  of  districts  containing  many  congregations, 
they  have  their  associations,  consociations,  confer- 
ences, etc.,  which  practically  attempt  the  work  of  Pres- 
byteries, with  the  disadvantages  already  indicated  of 
putting  the  power  in  the  hands  of  men  who  have  no 
official  authority,  and  are  under  no  official  responsi- 
bility. It  is  a  painful  evidence  of  the  power  of  preju- 
dice that  a  man  like  Owen  could  lay  down  the  princi- 


Presbyteries — Classical,  Synodical,  General.  19l 

pies  touching  church  power  so  clearly,  and  contend  for 
the  divme  warrant  of  Synods  to  the  extent  of  asserting 
that  their  decrees  "  are  to  be  received,  owned  and  ob- 
served, not  only  on  the  evidence  of  the  mind  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  them,"  but  also  on  the  ministerial  au- 
thority of  the  Synod  itself  (see  place  above  cited),  and 
yet  hold  that  they  have  no  power  of  censure  (judicial) 
or  excommunication,  and  that  it  belongs  not  to  the 
rulers  of  the  church,  as  rulers,  to  be  members  of  such 
S3'nods,  but  to  private  members  as  well,  provided 
they  be  delegated  thereunto  by  the  people. 

'S.  From  Scripture.  The  federal  character  of  the 
government  of  Isi'ael,  combining  unity  with  the  full 
development  of  tribal  and  individual  life.  Force  of  the 
words  "congregation  of  Israel."  The  Avord  "church," 
{vMf^Gia)  has  already  been  noticed  as  equivalent;  in 
LXX.,  to  the  word  rendered  "congregation"  in  ours, 
and  as  the  term  "congregation,"  in  the  Old  Testament, 
denotes  the  whole  body  of  the  visible  people  of  God, 
so  the  term  "  church,"  in  the  New.  But  here  the  In- 
dependents join  issue  with  us.  They  deny  that  the 
term,  when  used  in  the  singular  number,  and  in  appli- 
cation to  a  visible  body,  ever  denotes  anything  larger 
than  a  single  congregation.  It  is  necessary,  therefore, 
to  argue  this  point  a  little.  I.  The  phrase  "  chiu'ch" 
of  or  at  "Jerusalem,"  occurs  several  times  in  the  Acts. 
(See  ii.  47;  viii.  1 ;  xi.  22;  xv.  4.)  II.  The  church  of 
Jerusalem  must  have  consisted  of  several  congregations. 
Argued,  (1),  From  the  multitude  of  believers.  Acts 
ii.  41,  47  ;  iv.  4;  v.  14;  vi.  1,  etc.,  vs.  7.  These  notices 
refer  to  the  church  before  the  dispersion,  upon  the 
persecution  which  arose  after  the  death  of  Stephen ; 
and  the  number  of  believers  could  not  have  been  much, 
if  any,  short  of  10,000.  After  the  dispersion  we  have 
notices  like  the  following:  ix.  31;  xxi.  20;  ''-oaat 
fv^ocaoe-,''  "how  many  tens  of  thousands."  (2),  From 
the  manner  of  meeting  among  the  primitive  Christians. 
This  was  not  in  spacious  halls  built  for  the  purpose, 


192  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

but  in  dwelling-liouses,  chambers,  upper  rooms,  etc.^ 
Acts  i.  18 ;  ii.  46  ;  xii.  5,  witli  vs.  12 ;  xix.  9 ;  xx.  8. 
Rom.,  xvi.  5.  {Dii\  Govt,  by  Loncl.  Ministers.)  (3), 
The  church  is  represented  as  one  body,  in  the  New 
Testament,  ^^  fitly  joined  together  and  compacted  by  that 
which  eYerj  joint  supplieth."  (Eph.  iv.  16.)  As  this  is 
the  church  to  which  is  given  the  ministry  (vs.  11,  etc.), 
it  must  be  the  church  visible ;  and  it  is  just  as  natural 
to  consider  these  "bands"  and  "joints"  as  designating 
the  means  by  wliicli  different  congregations  are  united 
in  the  same  confederation,  as  it  is  to  consider  them  the 
means  of  union  to  the  individual  members  of  the  same 
church,  particular  or  single.  {Allien,  p.  250.)  (4), 
This  doctrine  of  the  visible  unity  of  the  church  seems 
to  have  been  sanctioned  by  the  practice  of  the  apostles. 
See  Acts  viii.  14;  xi.  22;  also  ch.  xv.,  where  they  are 
represented  as  acting  in  concert,  although,  from  the 
very  nature  of  the  apostolic  office,  each  was  a  governor 
of  the  whole  church. 

4.  A  fourth  general  argument  may  be  taken  from  the 
Jewish  synagogues.  It  is  conceded,  even  by  candid  op- 
ponents of  the  Presbyterian  system,  "that  the  church 
did  really  derive  its  polity  from  the  synagogue,  and 
that  it  is  a  fact,  upon  the  proof  of  which,  in  the  pre- 
sent state  of  theological  learning,  it  is  needless  to  ex- 
pend man}^  words"  (see  Littona  Churcli  of  Christ, 
cited  by  Killen,  p.  251) ;  and  this  accounts  for  the  fact 
that  in  the  New  Testament  there  is  no  formal  state- 
ment in  regard  to  the  constitution  of  the  Christian 
church,  just  as  there  is  no  formal  explanation  of  the 
meaning  of  the  word  Christ  or  Messiah.  Killen  gives, 
out  of  standard  authors  (Selden,  Lightfoot,  etc.),  the 
following  account  of  the  government  of  the  s^^nagogue, 
(p.  251  et  seq.) :  Every  Jewish  congregation  was  gov- 

*  This  view  is  contiriired  by  the  well  known  fact  that  the  synagogues 
were  generally  not  large.  It  is  said  (See  Prideaiix)  that  there  were  480 
of  them  in  Jerusalem  in  the  Saviour's  time,  and  yet  the  population  of 
the  city  was  probably  not  more  than  150,000  at  the  outside,  giving  an 
average  of  one  synagogue  to  a  little  more  than  300  people. 


Presbyteries — Classical,  Synodical,  General.  193 

eriied  by  a  bench  of  elders ;  and  in  every  city  there  was 
a  small  sanhedrin  or  presbytery,  consisting  of  twenty- 
three  members,  to  which  the  neighboring  synagogues 
were  subject.  Jerusalem  is  said  to  have  had  two  of  these 
small  sanhedrins,  as  it  was  found  that  the  multitude 
of  cases  arising  among  so  vast  a  population  were  more 
than  sufficient  to  occupy  the  time  of  any  one  judicatory. 
Appeals  lay  from  all  these  tribunals  to  the  great  sanhe- 
drin, or  "  council,"  so  frequently  mentioned  in  the  New 
Testament.  (Luke  xxii.  66;  Acts  v.  21;  vi.  15;  Pri- 
deaux's  Con.,  Part  II.,  Book  7.)  This  court  consisted  of 
seventy  or  seventy-two  members,  made  up,  perhaps,  in 
equal  portions,  of  chief-priests,  scribes,  and  elders  of 
the  people.  (Matt.  xvi.  21  ;  xxvi.  59  ;  Mark,  xv.  1.) 
The  chief-priests  were  probabl}^  24  in  number— each 
of  the  24  courses  into  which  the  sacerdotal  order  was 
divided  (1  Chron.  xxiv.4;  vii.  18),  thus  furnishing  one 
representative.  The  scribes  were  the  men  of  learning, 
like  Gamaliel  (Acts  v.  34),  who  had  devoted  themselves 
to  the  study  of  the  Jewish  law,  and  who  possessed 
recondite  as  well  as  extensive  information.  The  elders 
were  laymen  (?)  of  reputed  wisdom  and  experience, 
who,  in  i:)ractical  matters,  might  be  expected  to  give 
sound  advice.  .  .  .  Our  Lord  himself,  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  is  understood  to  refer  to  the 
great  council  and  its  subordinate  judicatures  (Matt,  v. 
22 );  and  in  the  Old  Testament,  appeals  from  inferior 
tribunals  to  the  authorities  in  the  holy  city  are  ex- 
plicitly enjoined.  (Deut.  xvii.  8-10;  2  Chron.  xix.  8-, 
11 ;  Psalms,  cxxii.  5.)  All  the  synagogues,  not  only 
in  Palestine,  but  in  foreign  countries,  obeyed  the  or- 
ders of  the  sanhedrin  at  Jerusalem,  and  it  constituted 
a  court  of  review  to  which  all  other  ecclesiastical  arbit- 
ers yielded  submission.  (See  also  Miller  on  Biding 
Eldrs,  Ch.  II.,  p.  31,  et  seq.) 

These  principles  and  facts  undoubtedly  explain  and 
harmonize  all  the  notices  of  the  New  Testament  in  re- 
gard to  elders,   and  the  organization  of  the  church, 


194  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

better  than  the  theories  of  Independents  or  prelatists, 
although  it  may  be  conceded  that  absolute  certainty 
cannot  be  reached  upon  these  points  as  it  can  be  in 
regard  to  those  articles  of  faitli  which  are  fundamental 
and  necessary  to  salvation.  And,  hence,  while  we 
contend  for  the  scriptural  order  of  Christ's  house,  as  a 
matter  of  faith  and  of  vast  importance  to  the  prosperity 
and  efficiency  of  the  church,  we  do  not  unchurch  and 
remit  to  the  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God  those  who, 
holding  the  head,  yet  differ  from  us  upon  these  points. 

We  have  thus  reached,  in  the  course  of  our  inqui- 
ries, a  third  distinctive  feature  of  Presbyterian  church 
government — the  mode  in  which  it  realizes  the  unity 
of  the  church.  It  realizes  this  idea  b}^  the  elastictity  of 
its  parliamentary  representative  system.  If  there  was 
but  one  congregation  on  earth,  its  presbytery  or  "  ses- 
sion," W'Ould  constitute  the  parliament  of  the  whole 
church  ;  if  half-a-dozen,  the  representatives  from  each 
would  constitute  a  parliament  for  the  whole  church;  if 
a  still  larger  number,  the  same  results  would  follow. 
And  representatives  from  all  the  churches  (or  from 
the  smaller  parliaments,  Avhich  is  the  same  principle,) 
constitute  the  parliament  for  the  Avhole  church.  Only 
two  churches  on  the  earth  realize  this  idea  of  church 
unity — Rome  and  our  ow-n  church.  But  these  are  the 
poles  apart  as  to  the  system  by  wdiich  they  realize  it. 
Rome,  wdtli  her  infallible  pope  at  the  head,  and  with 
graded  authorities  extending  over  the  Avhole  earth,  one 
class  subservient  to  another  and  all  to  the  pope,  se- 
cures a  terrible  unity,  binding  all,  abjectly,  to  a  single 
throne.  Our  system,  on  the  other  hand,  secures  unity 
in  consistency  with  the  most  perfect  freedom.  Presby- 
terianism,  may,  therefore,  be  thus  defined  :  The  gov- 
ernment of  the  church  by  parliamentary  assemblies, 
composed  of  two  classes  of  presbyters,  and  of  presby- 
ters only,  and  so  arranged  as  to  realize  the  visible 
unity  of  the  wdiole  church.    ( Thornwell,  Vol.  lY.,  p.  267.) 

II.  In  the  light  of  these  principles  we  recognize  the 


Peesbyteries — Classical,  Synodical,  General.  195 

truth  of  the  statement  of  the  fmidamental  principles 
of  Presbyterianism  contained  in  the  note  to  Form  of 
Gov.,  B.  1,  Ch.  XII.,  in  the  okl  book.  If  all  the  com- 
municants in  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United 
States  could  meet  for  worship  in  the  same  place,  they 
might  and  should  be  under  the  government  of  the 
same  session;  but  as  this  is  impossible,  they  are 
broken  up  into  single  congregations,  each  with  its  own 
session.  But  in  order  to  preserve  the  unity,  all  these 
single  or  local  presbyteries  are  ultimately  combined 
by  representation  in  one  presbytery,  which  we  call 
the  General  Assembly,  passing  through  the  inter- 
mediate stages  of  classical  and  synodical  presbyteries. 
Of  this  General  Assembly  Ave  might  sa}^,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Milton  (Reason  of  Cliurcli  Goveriiment  against 
Prelaty,  Ch.  VI.),  "every  parochial  consistory  is  a 
right  homogeneous  and  constituting  part,  being  in 
itself  a  little  synod,  and  towards  a  general  assembly 
moving  upon  her  own  basis  in  an  even  and  firm  pro- 
gression, as  those  smaller  squares  in  battle  unite  in 
one  great  cube,  the  main  phalanx,  an  emblem  of  truth 
and  steadfastness."  It  is  not  one  order  of  clergy 
rising  above  another,  like  the  gradations  in  the  Roman 
hierarchy,  but  a  larger  square  of  the  same  order  of 
presbyters,  including  a  smaller,  until  the  "great  cube" 
is  reached.  The  subordination  is  not  that  of  inferior 
officers  to  superior ;  but  of  a  smaller  body  to  a  larger 
body  of  officers  of  the  same  order — the  smaller  con- 
stituting a  part  of  the  larger.  Now  in  regard  to  this 
series  of  courts  it  is  important  to  observe:  1,  As  has 
already  been  noted,  it  is  a  matter  of  conventional 
arrangement,  founded  upon  expedienc}^  how  many 
and  how  large  these  courts  shall  be,  how  often  they 
shall  meet,  how  they  shall  be  constituted ;  that  is,  of 
what  number  of  elders  and  how  many  of  each  class, 
how  many  shall  constitute  a  quorum,  etc.  2,  That 
as  appellate  jurisdiction  must  belong  to  the  courts 
above  the  sessions,  or  congregational  presbytery,  it  is 


196  EccLESioLoaY. 

also  a  matter  of  convention  or  of  constitutional  arrange- 
ment how  this  ai:>pellate  jurisdiction  sliall  be  distributed 
and  regulated;  subject  of  course  to  the  principle  of  a 
larger  reviewing  the  doings  of  the  smaller  part,  and 
consequently  of  the  highest  appellate  jurisdiction  be- 
longing to  the  highest  court  which  is  allowed  appel- 
late jurisdiction  at  all.  3,  That  in  matters  of  original 
jurisdiction  every  court  has,  prior  to  any  constitutional 
distribution  of  power,  all  the  power  that  slyij  court  has. 
The  presbytery  does  not  derive  its  powers  from  the 
session,  nor  the  synod  from  the  presbytery,  nor  the 
general  assembh'  from  synods  or  presbyteries  in  an 
ascending  scale,  nor  the  synod  from  the  general  as- 
sembly, etc.,  in  a  descending  scale.  But  as  fevery 
court  is  a  presbytery  composed  of  presbyters  of  two 
classes,  it  is  clothed  with  all  the  powers  of  government. 
So  that  a  session  might  ordain  and  send  out  mission- 
aries, and  the  general  assemby  might  examine  and  re- 
ceive members  into  the  communion  of  the  church,  if 
these  powers  had  not  been  distributed  in  the  constitu- 
tion. The  sphere  of  the  several  courts,  therefore,  in 
matters  of  original  jurisdiction  is  not  determined  by 
the  places  they  occup}'  in  the  scale,  but  by  the  defini- 
tions of  the  constitution.  This  is  an  important  princi- 
ple to  the  freedom  and  independence  of  the  courts. 

The  dictum  by  which  the  unity  of  the  church,  the 
power  of  the  parts,  and  the  power  of-  the  whole  over 
the  particular  parts,  are  expressed  is  as  follows:  "The 
power  of  the  whole  is  in  every  part,  and  the  power  of 
the  whole  is  over  the  power  of  every  part."  The  power 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States  is  in 
the  general  assembly,  the  synod,  the  presbytery,  the 
session,  and  the  power  of  the  general  assembly  is  over 
the  power  of  the  synod,  presbytery  and  session.  This 
last  ex^Dression  is  intended  to  preserve  the  rights  and 
powers  belonging  to  the  lower  courts  (guaranteed  by 
the  constitution).  The  general  assembly  has  no  power 
directly  over  the  part,  but  only  over  the  p)0Vjer  of  the 


The  Deacon's  Office.  197 

part,  which  impHes  that  the  part  has  a  power.  Com- 
pare the  civil  commonwealth.  The  Commonwealth  of 
Virginia  appears  in  all  its  parts  or  courts  as  a  party 
and  judge  in  every  criminal  cause,  and  as  a  judge  only 
in  every  civil  suit.  This  fact  is  the  ground  of  the  pro- 
visions for  appeals,  complaints  (bills  of  exceptions), 
references  (change  of  venue),  etc.  See  the  action  of 
Assembly,  1879,  on  the  overture  of  Atlanta  Presbytery 
on  worldly  amusements  (answer  to  third  question). 

XIX. 

The  Deacon's  Office. 

The  communion  of  saints  is  implied  in  the  very  no- 
tion of  an  organized  church  having  its  polity  and  its 
ordinances  of  w^orship.  But  this  communion  {xon^ojvm) 
is  most  impressively  exhibited  in  two  ordinances,  both 
of  which  are  emphatically  denominated  by  the  word 
communion,  to  wit:  the  Lord's  supper  and  contribu- 
tions in  money,  or  its  equivalent.  (Acts  ii.  42-45 ;  1 
Cor.  X.  16 ;  2  Cor.  viii.  4 ;  Heb.  xiii.  16 ;  Eom.  xv.  26, 
27.)  Both  of  these  belong  to  the  worship  of  God. 
No^  definition  of  worship  can  be  framed  which  can 
be  justly  appHed  to  the  Lord's  supper,  that  will  not 
apply  also  to  these  contributions.  There  is  no  more 
glorious  act  of  worship  descril^ed  in  the  Bible  than  that 
in  the  last  chapter  of  the  First  Book  of  the  Chronicles. 

This  view  of  contributions  accounts  for  the  import- 
ance ascribed  to  them  in  both  Testaments.  They  are 
the  tokens,  and,  in  some  respects,  the  most  unexcep- 
tionable tokens  of  the  reality  of  the  communion  of 
saints.  Considering  the  power  of  the  feehng  of  mine, 
who  can  read  that  the  primitive  Christians  were  not 
accustomed  to  say,  "that  aught  of  the  things  which 
they  possessed  was  their  own,"  but  that  "they  had  all 
things  common,"  can  doubt  that  a  new  principle  was 
at  work  in  their  hearts,  a  principle  not  earth-born,  but 
descended  from  heaven.     Still  more  manifest  did  this 


198  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

become  when  the  Gentile  Christians  contributed  to  the 
relief  of  their  Jewish  brethren.  Here  there  was  no 
bond  of  blood  to  prompt  tlie  beneficence;  rather  was 
there  the  bitter  prejudice  of  race.  No  wonder  that  the 
great  apostle  was  willing  to  travel  all  the  way  to  Jeru- 
salem to  seal  the  gift  to  the  recipients;  that  is,  to  ex- 
pound its  comprehensive  spiritual  meaning,  and  to  im- 
press upon  their  hearts  the  reality  and  the  glory  of 
the  communion  of  saints.  (Acts  xi.  29,  30  ;  Rom.  xv. 
25-28;  1  Cor.  xvi.  1-4;  2  Cor.  chaps,  viii.  ix.) 

It  was  in  this  form,  "in  relieving  each  other  in  out- 
ward things  according  to  their  several  abilities  and 
necessities"  {Con.  of  Faith,  Ch.  XXVI.,  Art.  2.),  that  the 
communion  of  saints  was  first  and  most  conspicuously 
exhibited  in  the  primitive  church  ;  and  it  was  in  con- 
nection with  this  form  that  the  deacons  first  appeared, 
(Acts  vi.  1-6.)  They  were  the  deacons  of  ''tables,"  as 
the  apostles  were  deacons  of  "  the  word."  The  saints 
had  communion  with  each  other  in  the  apostles'  teach- 
ing and  in  breaking  of  bread  and  in  prayers  (Acts  ii. 
42) ;  but  they  had  also  communion  with  each  other  in 
"  ontward  things  ";  and  this  form  of  communion  is  that 
which  the  narrative  enlarges  upon  in  the  succeeding 
verses  (44,  45),  and  reverts  to  in  ch.  iv.  32-37.  The 
prime  aspect,  then,  of  the  office  of  deacon  is  that  of  a 
representative  of  the  communion  of  saints.  The  Avord 
may  be  and  is  preached  where  there  are  no  saints,  and 
therefore  no  communion;  it  is  conceivable  also  that 
ruling  elders  may  exercise  their  authority  in  a  dead 
church ;  but  deacons  have  nothing  to  do,  except  in  a 
church  which  has  life  enough  to  show  itself  in  a  min- 
istr}^  to  the  saints. 

This  circumstance  demonstrates  the  dignity  and 
spirituality  of  the  deacon's  office.  Albeit  concerned 
mainly  with  "  outward  things,"  it  is  with  the  outward 
things  of  a  spiritual  body  that  the  office  is  concerned, 
and  spiritual  qualifications  are  indispensable  to  a  right 
administration  of  them.     Hence  we  find  Paul,  in  pre- 


The  Deacon's  Office.  199 

scribing  tLe  qualifications  of  cliurcli  officers  in  tlie  third 
chapter  of  his  First  Epistle  to  Timothy,  saying  as  much 
of  those  of  the  deacon  as  of  those  of  the  elder,  if  not 
more.  It  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  a  deacon 
should  have  been  chosen  rather  than  an  apostle  to  see 
that  it  was  God's  plan  to  abolish  the  Mosaic  form  of 
the  true  religion,  and  to  establish  one  which  should  be 
spiritual  and  universal.  The  celebrated  saying  of 
xVugustine,  "  If  Stephen  had  not  prayed,  we  should  not 
have  had  Paul,"  was  perhaps  more  com]3rehensive  in 
its  scope  than  the  great  thinker  supposed.  The  prayer 
of  the  dying  martyr  was  perhaps  the  means,  not  only 
of  the  conversion  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  but  of  bringing 
him  upon  the  scene  as  Paul  the  apostle  of  the  (}entiles. 
Certain  it  is  that  the  charges  against  Paul,  by  which 
the  Jews  thought  themselves  justified  in  seeking  to  kill 
him,  were  the  very  same  as  those  which  led  to  the  mur- 
der of  Stephen.  (Compare  Acts  vi.  11-14  with  xxi. 
28;  XXV.  8.)  It  is  also  not  a  little  remarkable  that 
while  the  account  of  the  death  of  James,  the  brother 
of  John,  one  of  the  three  apostles  who  were  admitted 
to  special  intimacy  with  the  Lord,  is  dispatched  in  one 
short  sentence  (See  Acts  xii.  2),  the  account  of  the 
deacon's  death  is  given  in  detail.  A  dozen  verses 
would  embrace  all  that  is  said  of  James  in  the  New 
Testament;  two  chapters,  one  of  them  long,  are  occu- 
pied with  Stephen,  the  deacon ;  and  every  reader  of 
church  history  knows  what  a  prominent  part  deacons 
have  played  in  it.  It  is  not  a  small  office.  Paul  prob- 
ably had  Stephen  in  his  mind  when  he  wrote  the  sen- 
tence (1  Tim.  iii.  13),  "They  that  have  served  well 
as  deacons  gain  to  themselves  a  good  standing  and 
great  boldness  in  the  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus." 
But  the  sam  ^  ma}-  be  true  now,  if  deacons  will  take  the 
pains  to  unuerstand  their  office,  and  seek  grace  from 
God  to  perform  its  duties  and  to  improve  its  privileges. 
That  special  condition  of  the  early  church  in  Jerusa- 
lem   which    gave    occasion    to    the    appointment    of 


^00  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

deacons  was  temporary  and  local,  and  was  designed  to 
be  so.  We  know  not  how  long  it  lasted,  probably  not 
long.  It  is  easy  to  see  that  a  permanent  condition  of 
tliat  sort  would  have  resulted  in  many  and  great  evils, 
unless  prevented  by  a  continued  nnracle,  and  there  is 
no  trace  of  such  a  condition  in  any  of  the  Gentile 
churches.  Nevertheless,  ''  the  poor  were  not  to  cease 
out  of  the  land  "  ;  they  were  to  have  the  gospel  preached 
unto  them ;  and  to  the  end  of  time  the  ministry  to  the 
necessities  of  the  saints  should  continue  to  be  needful. 
The  office  of  deacon  was  therefore  intended  to  be  per- 
petual. 

But  it  would  l)e  taking  too  narrow  a  view  of  the 
office  to  confine  its  exercise  to  this  kind  of  ministry. 
The  communion  of  saints  "in  outward  things"  is  more 
extensive  than  can  be  adequately  exhibited  by  the  re- 
lief of  the  poor  in  a  single  congregation  or  in  a  single 
city.  A  single  congregation,  or  all  the  congregations 
united  in  a  single  city,  is  not  the  church  universal,  or 
even  the  church  of  one  state  or  country.  The  commu- 
nion, therefore,  "  is  to  be  extended  as  our  Confession 
says,  (Ch.  XXVI.,  Art.  2)  "unto  all  those  in  everyplace 
who  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  The  rule 
holds  still,  that  "by  an  equality  the  abundance  of  one 
part  should  be  a  supply  for  the  want  of  another  part." 
(2  Cor.  viii,  14.)  "Our  committees  of  Home  Missions 
and  Education  are  but  great  central  deaconships  of 
charitable  ministrations,  by  which  in  these  things  the 
burdens  of  the  church  may  be  equalized;  the  richer 
provided  with  the  means  of  helping  the  poorer,  and 
the  unity  and  union  of  the  church  at  once  manifested 
and  strengthened.  And  it  is  but  a  slight  variation  of 
the  same  principle  that  is  developed  in  the  work  of 
Foreign  Missions,  in  which  the  church  unites  in  sup- 
porting her  sons  and  daughters  whom  she  has  sent  forth 
to  the  nations,  and  in  sustaining  and  enlarging  the 
feeble  churches  established  amid  the  wild  wastes  of 
heathenism."  (See  Dr.  Bamsay's  Essay  on  the  Deacon- 
shi'p,  p.  20.) 


The  Deacon's  Office.  201 

''To  tlie  deacons  also  may  V)e  properly  committed," 
says  our  Foriii  of  Government  (Cli.  lY.,  Art.  2),  "  the 
management  of  the  temporal  affairs  of  the  church." 
The  chiirch,  like  the  individual  Christian,  has  its  "tem- 
poral affairs."  This  phrase  denotes  specially  the  pro- 
perty of  the  congregation,  the  house  in  which  it  stat- 
edly worships  and  the  ground  upon  wdiich  it  stands,  as 
well  as  the  expenses  necessarily  attendant  u]:>on  the 
comfortable  use  of  it.  " 

This  brings  up  the  question  concerning  the  relation 
of  the  deacons  to  the  trustees  of  the  property — a  rela- 
tion which  in  many  congregations,  especially  in  the 
cities,  is  far  from  being  satisfactorily  settled.  In  some 
congregations,  the  trustees  are  allowed  to  determine 
the  salary  of  the  pastor,  for  the  reason  that  the  salar}^ 
comes  from  the  rent  of  the  pews,  and  the  pews  be- 
long to  the  house.  If  this  inequitable  method  of  rais- 
ing the  salary  were  abandoned,  as  it  ought  to  be, 
there  would  be  no  plausible  pretext  left  for  the  usurpa- 
tion of  the  trustees.  The  officers  who  represent  the 
projierty,  it  is  argued,  ought  to  regulate  the  disposal 
of  the  proceeds  thereof.  Now,  when  it  is  considered 
that  these  trustees  are  often  not  professing  Christians, 
but  men  of  the  world,  chosen  because  they  are  monied 
men  and  men  of  business,  and  sometimes  because  they 
have  property  in  the  neighl)orhood  of  the  church 
])uilding  whose  market  value  will  be  affected  by  the 
character  of  the  vicinage,  it  needs  no  argument  to 
prove  that  the  trustees  are  not  the  persons  who  are 
most  likely  to  seek  the  spiritual  editication  of  the 
diurch  in  the  choice  of  a  pastor.  Others  propose  to 
remedy  or  prevent  this  odious  form  of  "  patronage" 
by  having  the  deacons  incorporated  as  trustees.  But 
the  obvious  objections  to  this  scheme  are,  (1),  That 
such  trustees  would  have  no  more  right  to  usurp, 
though  there  might  be  less  temptation   to  usurp,  the 

*For  the  Scotch  doctrine,  see  BainVs  Digest,  pp.  38,  39. 


202  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

prerogative  of  the  congregation  as  to  the  pastor's 
salar}',  than  the  trustees  of  the  other  sort;  (2),  That  it 
would  be  contrary  to  the  American  theory  of  the  rela- 
tions of  church  and  state  to  make  ecclesiastical  officers, 
as  such,  officers  of  the  state."  The  trustees,  in  the 
eye  of  the  law,  are  not  representatives  of  the  church  as 
such,  l>ut  of  a  body  of  citizens  who  have  a  right  t(^ 
claim  from  the  civil  authority  protection  for  their  pro- 
perty. But  deacons  are  ecclesiastical  officers,  and  rep- 
resent the  church.  The  remedy  of  the  evil  is  to  be 
found  in  the  principle  that  trustees  of  church  ])roperty 
are  intended  to  act  only  in  cases  of  the  purchase  or 
sale  of  property,  or  of  invasion  of  right,  when  litigation 
before  the  court  becomes  necessary.  This  is  the  prin- 
ciple acted  upon  almost  invariably  in  the  countr}' 
congregations  of  the  South.  It  is  doubtful  in  most  of 
such  congregations  if  the  trustees  are  known  at  all,  or 
c(mld  be  found  in  an  emergency,  or  whether,  in  conse- 
quence of  omission  to  fill  vacancies,  the  board  has  not 
entirely  expired. 

That  it  is  the  official  duty  of  the  deacons  to  take 
charge  of  the  pastor's  salary  would  probably  not  havt^ 
been  questioned,  if  the  salary  had  not  been  regarded  as 
a  pure  affair  of  lousiness,  and  not  in  any  just  sense  as 
an  expression  of  the  communion  of  saints.  In  point 
of  fact,  it  partakes  of  the  nature  of  both ;  and  this 
is  enough  to  justify  our  church  in  inserting  the  article 
upon  which  the  foregoing  comments  have  been  made, 
and  to  refute  the  notion  that  the  pastor's  salary  is  an 
affair  of  the  civil  officers  called  trustees.  According 
to  our  constitution,  the  body  that  calls  the  pastor  is 
the  body  that  fixes  the  salary,  and  that  body  is  the 
body  of   communicants.     (See   Form    of  Governnient^ 

*It  caunot  be  denied,  however,  that  oar  Americau  theory  is  not  con- 
sistently carried  out.  In  Virginia,  for  example,  whose  traditions  have 
been  more  decided  and  operative  than  perhaps  those  of  any  other  state 
against  the  mingling  of  the  two  jurisdictions,  a  minister  of  the  gospel 
is  ex  officio  an  officer  of  the  state  in  the  matter  of  celebrating  a  mar- 
riage. 


The  Deacon's  Office.  20B 

Ch.  VI.,  Sec.  3,  Arts.  4  and  6.)  The  deacon,  there- 
fore, is  the  proper  officer  to  take  charge  of  the  pas- 
tor's sahiry,  and  the  trustees  ms  such  have  nothing  to 
do  with  it. 

Another  question  to  which  importance  has  been 
given  by  discussions  in  the  church  is  concerning  the 
reLation  of  the  deacon  to  the  session.  How  far  is  the 
deacon  responsible  to  the  session  in  the  performance  of 
his  official  duties?  It  is,  of  course,  conceded  on  all 
hands  that  in  the  case  of  criniinal  conduct  he  is  re- 
sponsible to  the  session — the  court  to  which,  accord- 
ing to  the  constitution,  all  original  jurisdiction,  except 
in  the  trial  of  ministers,  belongs.  It  must  be  con- 
ceded also,  that  money  contributed  for  a  specific  pur- 
pose, say  Home  or  Foreign  Missions,  cannot,  in  good 
faith,  be  diverted  from  that  purpose,  by  either  ses- 
sion or  deacons,  without  the  consent  of  the  contribu- 
tors. In  reference  to  all  other  funds,  it  would  seem 
that  they  are  under  the  direction  and  control  of  the 
session.  The  public  purse  must  be  nnder  the  control 
of  the  government.  In  free  civil  commonwealths,  the 
government  is  distributed  into  different  branches ;  and 
the  power  of  the  purse,  for  obvious  reasons,  is  lodged 
with  that  l)ranch  which  more  immediately  represents 
the  peo]ile  from  a\  liom  the  money  is  derived  by  taxa- 
tion. But  it  belongs  to  the  government.  So  in  the 
church.  The  government  is  not,  indeed,  distributed 
into  branches  as  it  is  in  the  state,  neither  is  there  any 
taxation ;  but  the  rulers  are  the  representatives  of  the 
l)eople  as  chosen  by  them,  and  the  people  consent  that 
their  voluntary  offerings  shall  be  controlled  by  them. 
To  give  the  deacons,  wIk^  are  not  rulers,  power  to  dis- 
pose of  the  revenues  as  against  the  elders,  would  be 
virtuall}'  to  create  an  linperhim  rn  rtiijyerv) ;  for  the 
power  goes  wdtli  the  purse.  Hence  we  find  the  con- 
tributions of  the  primitive  church  laid  "  at  the  feet  of 
the  apostles."  (Acts  iv.  35,  37  ;  v.  2.)  It  is  in  ac- 
cordance with  this  view  that  our  Form  of  Government 


204  ECCLESIOLOGY. 

provides  (Cli.  IV.,  Sec.  4,  Art.  4),  that  "a  complete 
account  of  collections  and  distributions,  and  a  full 
record  of  proceedings,  shall  be  kept  by  the  deacons, 
and  submitted  to  the  session  for  examination  and  ap- 
proval at  least  once  a  year." 

Another  question  which  has  been  del^ated  in  our 
church  concerns  the  relation  of  the  deacon  to  the 
courts  above  the  session.  Is  he  exclusively  a  congre- 
gational officer?  Or,  may  he  be  employed  also  by  the 
presbytery,  the  synod,  and  the  general  assembly?  Is 
there  anything,  either  in  the  nature  of  the  of- 
fice or  its  relation  to  the  congregation,  to  forbid  the 
management  by  it  of  the  Foreign  Missionary  or  any 
other  of  the  schemes  of  the  Assembly  ?  If  not,  why 
not  commit  such  of  these  schemes  to  a  board  of  dea- 
cons, and  set  free  the  ministers  of  the  word  for  their 
high  calling  ?  Did  not  the  apostles  insist  upon  the 
appointment  of  deacons  "to  serve  tallies,"  in  order  that 
they  might  give  themselves  to  the  "service  of  the 
word"?  The  answer  to  these  questions  may  be  given 
in  a  series  of  propositions  : 

1.  It  is  plain  tliat  the  originjd deacons  were  not  con- 
fined in  their  ministrations  to  a  single  congregation 
(Acts  vi.),  unless  we  suppose  with  the  Independents 
that  there  was  but  one  congregation  in  Jerusalem. 

2.  If  a  deacon  may  extend  his  ministrations  beyond 
the  bounds  of  his  own  congregation,  the  principle  is  set- 
tled, and  it  becomes  a  question  merely  of  expediency 
how  many  congregations  may  be  embraced  within  their 
scope.  Their  scope  may  embrace  all  tlie  congrega- 
tions represented  by  a  general  assembly. 

3.  There  may  be  cases  in  which  the  collection  and 
disbursement  of  the  people's  offerings  demand,  for 
their  full  effect,  the  accompaniment  of  instruction 
which  can  be  best  given  ou\j  by  ministers  of  the 
word.  In  such  cases  ministers  may  be  associated 
with,  or  even  take  the  place  of,  deacons.  Instances  of 
this  sort  Ave  find  in  Acts  i.  29,  80  ;  xxx.  4,  compared  with 


The  Deacon's  Office.  205 

xxiv.  17;  Kom.  xv.  25-28;  2  Cor.  viii.  1(3-24;  and 
Paley's  Hone  Panlitup,  Cli.  II.,  No.  3.  Paul  seems  to 
have  attached  so  much  importance  to  the  contributions 
mentioned  in  these  passages  as  to  justify  his  leaving 
his  work  among  the  Gentiles  and  his  taking  laborious 
journeys  to  Jerusalem,  in  order  to  expound  their  spir- 
itual significance  and  to  seal  to  the  recipients  the  pre- 
cious fruit.  How  far  these  principles  apply  to  any  or 
all  of  the  Assembly's  schemes,  it  is  for  the  Avisdom  of 
the  church  to  decide ;  but  it  is  the  author's  conviction 
that  the  tendency  is  now  to  excess  in  the  employment 
of  ministers  of  the  word,  and  to  a  return  to  plans  which 
the  church,  many  years  ago,  formally  repudiated  as 
wrong  in  principle  and  injurious  in  results. 

Touching  the  qualifications  for  the  deacon's  office, 
two  places  of  Scripture  may  be  compared  :  Acts  vi.  3,  5  ; 
1  Tim.  iii.  8,  9.  The  differences  here  may  be  ex- 
plained by  the  difference  between  a  temporary  condi- 
tion of  the  church,  in  which  gifts  of  the  Spirit  were 
prodigally  and  generally  bestowed,  and  a  condition  of 
the  church  designed  to  be  permanent,  in  which  gifts 
are  conferred  with  a  more  sparing  hand.  The 
proportion  between  the  gifts  generally  bestowed  and 
the  special  gifts  for  the  exercise  of  oftice  is  in  both  con- 
ditions about  the  same.  The  rule  for  the  guidance  of 
the  church  in  all  time  is,  no  doubt,  that  given  in  the 
third  chapter  of  the  First  Epistle  to  Timothy. 


DATE  DUE 


